Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Repricing

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is now satisfied that the practice of repricing foods or goods on shelves is ended.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): Judging by the dramatic reduction in the number of complaints received, it seems that the Price Code Provisions on this practice are generally being observed well.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not the case all over the country? I have here a bacon pack which contained half a pound of Sainsbury's bacon and which shows that the price was increased from the 40p stamped on the packet to 44p stamped on the ticket stuck over the old price. If I let my hon. Friend have the details will he look into the matter?

Mr. Alan Williams: I shall be glad to do so. That is a task that the Price Commission undertakes. In most cases it has been found to be due to sheer inadvertence, and firms have been only too happy to rectify the matter when it has been drawn to their attention. If my hon. Friend will let me have the pack I shall have the matter looked into.

Profits, Investment and Prices

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by what amounts the Price Code has restrained corporate profits, investment, and the retail price index, respectively.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): No reliable estimates are available. Many factors in addition to the Price Code influence prices, profits and investment.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Secretary of State aware that although reliable estimates may not be available for the factors referred to in the Question there is no doubt that the bureaucracy of the Price Code presents a very onerous burden for business? Will she therefore indicate that it will continue to be her policy to relax the code with, one hopes, the prospect of an early termination?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I believe that the Price Commission does everything in its power to meet legitimate points that firms make about the administrative burden. The Price Code was provided with certain relief in order to encourage investment and employment, and that will always be the first and guiding principle of the Government towards the code.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Price Code and food subsidies, much derided by the Opposition, have made some marginal impact in reducing price increases? Does she not conclude, from the many Questions tabled on this subject by Conservative Members, that the Opposition seem to have a vested interest in inflation?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Price Code was originally introduced by the Conservative Government, presumably because they believed it would have a considerable effect on inflation. I believe that the Price Code and subsidies together have averted a substantial element in containing the inflationary curve.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The previous Conservative Government introduced the Price Code but they also introduced measures on wage restraint. Under present circumstances is rot industry's problem


of passing on labour costs one of the main reasons for its lack of profitability?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Under the previous administration there were thresholds which affected some firms, not least those not a mile away from the hon. Member. Where there have been increases in labour costs this fact has been reflected to some extent in the productivity deduction.

National Consumer Council

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she expects to announce further appointments to the National Consumer Council.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is now able to announce appointments to the National Consumer Council; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope shortly to be able to make a further announcement about membership of the council.

Miss Fookes: Is there not some considerable delay on this, and is the Secretary of State having difficulty finding people who are suitable to appoint?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, quite the opposite. However, we are committed to consulting about 10 consumer organisations for a start. We have asked them to put up several names each to us and that is necessarily not the most rapid of processes.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend look favourably at the budget for this council so that if we are to have real consumer protection it will not be held up through lack of resources.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We started with a central budget of £300,000, but the nationalised industries consumer consultative councils, which will be coming under the financial Vote of my Department, have access to a good deal more than that, and we hope that it will be possible to do work in this field more broadly.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a proper balance between the

sexes on the council and that it will have a good representation of ordinary working-class people?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would regard a proper balance as a not exact balance in this case because I believe that there is perhaps even more interest in this subject among women than among men. My hon. Friend's second point is very much in my mind and I should welcome names from hon. Members as well as from the consumer organisations, not least those of people with direct experience of bringing up families on small incomes.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no purely political appointments to the council?

Mrs. Shirley Williams:: I cannot confirm that, but it has long been the tradition in this House that if a Government make an appointment of someone of a political character they tend to balance that appointment.

Retail Price Index

Mr. Wakeham: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in the retail price index over the past 12 months.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the current rate of price increases based on the last three months of the retail price index expressed at an annual rate.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The retail price index rose 19·9 per cent. between January 1974 and January 1975. The increase over the three months to January expressed at an annual rate was 25·9 per cent. which reflects the exceptional increases in sugar and petrol which took place in December and January.

Mr. Wakeham: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that price increases of the order of 20 per cent. over the first 12 months of the Labour Government is indeed a grave state of affairs, particularly when inflation in most industrial nations is beginning to fall?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I would be completely foolish if I did not regard this level of inflation as unacceptably high. The


hon. Gentleman should consider why it is that his party continually opposes the efforts we make to modify the rate of inflation. I hope he will accept from me that the rate of food index inflation is less now than it was about a year ago, largely because of the food subsidies, which the Conservative Party continually attacks.

Mr. Neubert: If, as seems likely, the February figures, to be published on Friday, show that the annual rate of inflation on a three-months' basis is approaching 30 per cent. to what will the Minister attribute this major achievement of Labour's first year of office?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: If I were to answer hypothetical questions like that, and, for that matter, if I were to reach a conclusion on the annual figure for inflation from the figures the hon. Member has put forward, I would be a very foolish person and not fit to stand at this Box.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the rate of inflation during 1974 and for some time to come must be due to the mismanagement of the national finances under the previous Government?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think that I should leave the right hon. Gentleman's comments to be referred to by his hon. Friends—

Mr. Powell: Do you agree?

Mr. William Hamilton: Of course she does.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the right hon. Member give me the opportunity to reply? He will know that there has been a reduction in the increase in the M3 money supply rate, which is now over half what it was under that previous administration.

Mr. Rost: When does the right hon. Lady expect the rate of inflation to begin to decline, or is that a hypothetical question as well?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is obviously a hypothetical question, because it depends, among other things, on the level of commodity prices and on imports. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the most unwise things anyone can do is

to make forecasts based on what he thinks will happen to world commodity prices, because those forecasts are mainly falsified in the event.

Inflation

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what arrangements there are in her Department for evaluating trends in inflation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): My Department is closely involved with other Whitehall Departments in evaluating trends in inflation both in this country and overseas.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the third Sitting of Standing Committee B dealing with the Prices Bill figures were given which implied an inflation rate of 12½ per cent.? Will the hon. Gentleman now revise that figure? If not, will be improve the techniques in his Department for forecasting the trend of inflation?

Mr. Maclennan: The figures of retail price indices are compiled by the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Any questions about their accuracy should be addressed to that Department.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: We are all greatly concerned about the inflationary situation, but does my hon. Friend accept that one hopeful sign is that for the first time there are indications that the special retail price index constructed for pensioners and similar groups is now moving less severely than the general index?

Mr. Maclennan: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about this matter. Generally speaking, I accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: As the increase in the cost of living over the past 12 months since the Government came into power has almost doubled, as this is the highest rate of increase ever recorded, and as it is continuing to accelerate at a catastrophic rate, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she will tell the House what she and the Government intend to do about it?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady does not seem to be aware that I am answering this Question. Had she wished to make that point, which arose out of the previous Question, she could have put it then to my right hon. Friend.

Contraceptive Sheaths

Mr. Lipton asked: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will take action following the report of the Monopolies Mergers Commission that in 1974 a British manufacturing firm sold on the home market 842,000 gross of contraceptive sheaths at a profit on sales of 43 per cent.

Mr. Alan Williams: The commission's figure of 43 per cent. for profit on home sales related to the year ending 31st March 1973. I announced on 6th February the action I intended to take and at my request the Office of Fair Trading is in touch with the manufacturer concerned with a view to obtaining undertakings to reduce prices as the commission recommended.

Mr. Lipton: Does my hon. Friend realise that since 10th February when he announced that the Director-General of Fair Trading was being asked to do something, about 80,000 gross of these things have been sold, presumably at a profit of 43 per cent.? How long is this concession to be allowed to this company?

Mr. Alan Williams: There are certain statutory procedures which have to be completed before we can bring forward an order under the Fair Trading Act. I am deeply conscious of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am sure he will be glad to know that there is to be a meeting with the company concerned and the Office of Fair Trading at the end of this week.

Services

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she expects to introduce further orders covering services under present consumer protection legislation.

Mr. Alan Williams: A draft order extending the restrictive practices legislation to commercial services will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. Provisions of the Consumer Credit Act will cover services and my right hon.

Friend hopes to make orders later this year.

Mr. Huckfield: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall the correspondence with my constituent, Mr. John Haynes, and the Nuneaton Coach Operators' Association, which, having tried the Warwickshire County Council, the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend's Department and the Office of Fair Trading, came to the conclusion that the order to which my hon. Friend refers was the only way in which they can get some action? Is he aware that the sooner this order is introduced the more grateful my constituents will be?

Mr. Alan Williams: If they are grateful they can be grateful to my hon. friend for the fact that he has campaigned for this and has consistently drawn it to the attention of the relevant authorities. I certainly hope that the order will deal with the type of case to which he refers.

Mrs. Chalker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the order he intends to implement will cover a special investigation into motor repairs, which seem to be rocketing in price? Is he aware that sometimes service is not being given to those who are paying out vast amounts for repairs?

Mr. Alan Williams: This order relates to restrictive practices. If there are restrictive practices leading to the situation to which the Lady refers, perhaps she will draw them to my attention.

Food Values (Consultant)

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement on the nature of the work of her Department's consultant on food values.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Miss Louise Davies has been appointed for six months on an experimental basis to provide regular public information about what foods are currently plentiful and offer good value, how to judge quality, and how these foods may be used to the best advantage.

Mr. Cormack: Will the Minister first make it clear beyond peradventure that he was not referring to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)? Has the Minister


noticed the comments of the Housewives Trust, which feels that this expenditure is a waste of money? Does he not agree that this is rather a strange area for the Government to operate in?

Mr. Maclennan: I remind the hon. Gentleman of his own words in introducing the Weights and Measures (Unit Pricing) Bill of 1973 when he said:
The housewife today, with the inflation that is ever in our minds, is more than ever needful of every possible assistance in obtaining value for money, in making a sensible choice, and in being able to spend her weekly budget to look after her family as best she can." [Official Report, 4th July 1973; c. 4–5.]
We have borne the strictures of the hon. Member in mind in making this appointment.

Trading Stamps

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many representations on trading stamps she has received during 1975.

Mr. Alan Williams: Six.

Mr. McCrindle: Has my hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the practice of some garages which announce that trading stamps will be provided in respect of petrol purchases and at the same time say that petrol may be bought by means of a credit card? Is he aware that if a credit card is used no trading stamps are given? Does not this practice come close to a violation of consumer protection legislation? Will my hon. Friend at least consider suggesting that if no stamps are to be made available when payment is made by credit card this fact should be made clear outside the filling station?

Mr. Alan Williams: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe that firms should draw this matter to the attention of motorists, since there is an increasing tendency for people to want to pay by credit card. I can understand the attitude of the garage, because it is having to pay a discount to the credit card firm. I shall consider the point. Garages should indicate that there is no such concession when cards are used.

Miss Fookes: Will the Minister consider the problem which arises when garages do not say how many stamps per gallon are to be given? Is he aware that

very often garages say "quadruple stamps", but there is no base from which to work?

Mr. Alan Williams: If the hon. Lady feels that there is considerable abuse here, and if she has information about it, I shall be pleased to receive it. It is a general practice to say "quadruple" or "fivefold", and so on. Generally, motorists seem to have an appreciation of what is involved. If the hon. Lady has a specific case in mind she should bring it to my attention.

Mrs. Renée Short: Instead of my hon. Friend wasting his time checking up on stamps, does he not think it would be a good idea to ban these wretched things altogether and reduce the price to the consumer?

Mr. Alan Williams: I know that some people share my hon. Friend's views. There are others who like the stamps. Many housewives perfer them. I do not see why, when there is reasonable choice available, we should impose one particular system on the consumer, when he or she can exercise that choice at will.

Bakers (Profit Margins)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will review the operation of margin control for bakers.

Mr. Maclennan: The only controls over bakers' margins are those contained in the general provisions of the Price Code. This has recently been reviewed, and a number of amendments were made which should be of special benefit to the baking industry.

Mr. Hordern: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the relaxations to which he refers do not include recovering past increases in costs? Is he further aware that the operation of the back marker system is such that many bakeries throughout the country are being driven out of business? Finally, is he aware that the Secretary of State gave a firm assurance exactly a year ago that the whole system would be reviewed? When may we expect the review to be announced?

Mr. Maclennan: The whole system is being reviewed at present.
With regard to the back marker principle, it is a recognised feature of the bread market that none of the major firms can move its prices very much out of line with another, particularly on the large standard loaf. Since the subsidy has been injected to offset price increases which would otherwise have taken place, it has naturally reflected this pattern of pricing. Just as in the market, therefore, the firm with the lowest justifiable price increase in Price Code terms sets the pace.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the baking industry's problem is not the definition which he has quoted but the fact that it made substantial losses in 1974 and forecasts for the current year very inadequate profits? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do to help the baking industry in these difficult times?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the losses to which he has referred were incurred under the Conservative Government's stage 3 policy and that since then we have made three important modifications of the code which I believe will help—indeed, they are helping—the industry to attain profitability. We have improved safeguards for profit margins. We have given a choice of base dates where margins were eroded during stage 1 of the Conservative Government's counter-inflation programme and have reduced the normal productivity deduction from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent.

Solicitors and Estate Agents (Charges)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will take steps designed to protect the purchasers and vendors of houses against the charges made by solicitors and estate agents.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am considering whether there is a need for further action in this field.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend say how soon he will come to a decision? Is it not the case that the work undertaken by solicitors and estate agents could be done quite competently by an intelligent clerk in a local office? Will he undertake to examine again the possibility of putting

all sales and purchases of houses on the market in the hands of the new local authorities?

Mr. Alan Williams: Many complex questions are involved here, including the question of the safety of the client's money, as well as the conveyancing work. However, I shall look at the points my hon. Friend has made today. We in the Department are at the moment working on the question of the position of estate agents and solicitors.

Mr. Adley: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look at the organisation chaired by Lord George-Brown? Would he give it his blessing?

Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, I would.

Mr. Alan Williams: I shall consider whether or not to bless the organisation. However, we are having to review the question of the most appropriate way of dealing with these transactions. There is no simple answer, because very large sums of money are involved, and in some cases very detailed technical problems must be coped with.

Mr. Cryer: Before allowing the local authorities to take over these functions, will my hon. Friend encourage the Government to give time to the very useful—indeed excellent—Ten-Minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), which is designed to protect the house purchaser from the monopolistic depredations of solicitors?

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) brought a deputation to see me about these matters, and we have discussed them in some detail.

Mr. Gow: Although we are full of admiration for Lord George-Brown, is it right for the Minister to undertake either to grant his blessing to his noble Friend or withhold it from him? Perhaps I should declare my interest, as I am a solicitor.

Mr. Alan Williams: I suspect that it will not much matter to the noble Lord whether I bless him or not.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department is considering bringing the advertisement of houses and descriptions in estate


agents' brochures within the Trade Descriptions Act?

Mr. Alan Williams: I am actively examining the question of amending the Trade Descriptions Act in this context.

European Economic Community

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her latest estimate of the effects for the British consumer of EEC membership in the field of food prices.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her latest estimate of the effects for the British consumer of EEC membership in the field of food prices and continuity of supply.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what effect British membership of the EEC has had on food prices in the UK since 1st January 1973 to the latest available date.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Following the decisions of the last Council of Agricultural Ministers and the transitional steps taken so far, the overall level of food prices in the United Kingdom is not at present significantly affected one way or the other by our membership of the European Community. Continuity of supply is obviously advantageous in avoiding shortages and wide fluctuations in price, though it cannot be accurately quantified.

Mr. Rost: When the right hon. Lady launches her campaign for our continued membership of the European Economic Community, will she spell out the advantages and the prices of food items which are cheaper, the continuity of supply and stability of prices, so that she can counteract some of the misleading proposals which her other Cabinet colleagues will be putting to the country?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that my responsibility to the House is to give the most accurate factual answer I can. In the light of that, I would point out that I have said before in the House that we benefit from the EEC subsidies on sugar, that we still benefit to some extent from the monetary compensatory amounts on cereals, but that we do not benefit from

the higher prices of dairy products on the Continent. Taking a balance of all these things, it is almost impossible to estimate whether there is a tiny net gain or a tiny net deficit on the total figures.

Mr. Dalyell: Would it not be better if my right hon. Friend were to leave answering these questions to her two very competent ministerial colleagues and whipped back to Downing Street quam celerine?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am not sure that my Latin is as good as my hon. Friend's, but I can assure him that it is not necessary for me to do that. One of the problems in making calculations is whether to include the sugar subsidy benefit of approximately £35 million. It is not included in the calculations in such journals as the Economist, for the straightforward reason that nobody can say whether the sugar which one buys this week is or is not drawn from the EEC subsidised sugar supplies or comes, for example, from the free market. Problems of this kind make a precise statistical formulation virtually impossible.

Sir A. Meyer: When the right hon. Lady gets back to Downing Street, will she support her newly enlightened colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who no doubt, will be maintaining, quite rightly, that if we remain in the EEC not only will the consumer be better protected against sudden shortages, but the producer will be better protected against sudden gluts and will thereby be given the confidence to expand domestic food production, greatly to the benefit of himself and the consumer in this country?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has already indicated the importance which he places on the expansion of home food production. This arises from the feeling that it may well be that the world now has behind it the era of relatively cheap food from the Third World, because of the change in the population-agricultural pattern of the world as a whole.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the common agricultural policy will be disastrous for the British consumer? Although the food subsidies maintained by the Government have kept the prices of milk, bread and cheese much lower than they are in


Europe, what guarantee have we that we shall be able to maintain our policy of food subsidies?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As I have tried to indicate, assessment of the common agricultural policy turns very much on what world food prices have done or are likely to do. Any attempt at objective judgment will show that the CAP is rather different in its effects than it would have been in, say, 1971 or 1972. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no prospect of any attempt being made to interfere with the Government's food subsidy programme, which has been consistently not commented upon in any way by the EEC.

Mr. Moate: If the Common Market taxes on imported lamb, cheese and butter were abolished, would it not help to bring down the cost of living?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: One has to say straight away that the tariff on lamb is one of the factors that has to go down on the negative list against the CAP. I understand that it is one of the factors that has tended to make food more expensive, just as the subsidies on sugar and the monetary compensatory amounts on cereals have tended to make them cheaper The hon. Gentleman is not wrong in saying that that is one factor that works the other way.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that our experience since joining the Community is that the sort of fears expressed about the CAP and the Treaty of Rome were figments of theology and bear no relationship to the practical experience of our Ministers in negotiation?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have tried to indicate, practical experience is that there has been very little difference, one way or the other, in the light of the increased world food prices over the last two years. As for the rest, the judgment of the House and the United Kingdom depends on what is believed to be the likely course of food prices over the next few years.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection which main foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom are now either markedly cheaper or markedly more

expensive than they would be if the United Kingdom were outside the EEC.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Taking account of EEC-financed subsidies, most imported cereals and sugar are cheaper than if we were not a member. Some dairy products and some imports on which duties are now charged, such as lamb and certain canned products, are probably somewhat more expensive than if we were not a member.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Secretary of State arrange for the clear and balanced language which she used on this topic about 10 minutes ago to appear in the Government's White Paper on Europe? Is it not important that people should realise that withdrawal from the Community, far from bringing down the general level of food prices would probably push up bread and sugar prices and make supplies much more uncertain than they are today?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The White Paper must carry the fullest statement of the facts which the Government can put before the public and on which the public can base their judgment. Among the things that will have to go in is the effect of subsidies where they exist, but also the effect the other way where that exists.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that on this sort of issue, on which there will be considerable controversy in coming months, it is dangerous to enter into hypothetical matters and to discuss statistics for which there is no basis one way or the other? Does she not agree that the best thing to say about this matter on either side of the fence is that it has little effect one way or the other on food prices?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think my hon. Friend is right. If both of us endeavour, from our particular points of view, to be factual with the House, we have to say that at the moment—the position changes from month to month—the existence of the CAP makes virtually no difference one way or the other to the price of food in Britain.

Mr. Rost: Which half of the Government will put the facts into the White Paper?

An hon. Member: The bigger half.

Consumer Advice Centres

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many local authorities are providing mobile consumer advice centers; what steps she is taking to extend the use of consumer advice centre mobile vehicles operating over a wide area on a rota basis; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Alan Williams: According to the latest information available to me, six local authorities are providing mobile consumer advice centres. The extent to which the service is provided in this way is a matter for local authorities to decide, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of their area and bearing in mind their financial situation and the Government guidance on expenditure on consumer advice services.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is disappointing that there is as yet a low take-up of this form of consumer centre? With the present economic stringencies are there not considerable advantages in a centre of this type which can serve a wide area at relatively low cost, compared with fixed buildings which can cater only for the people who can get to them?

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the type of mobile centre to which he refers is at an experimental stage. It involves a vehicle, which employs a specialist driver, because of the trailer that is towed. It may not be the least expensive type of service. Other authorities are experimenting with prepaid postcards, free telephone calls, and a clinic rota system. Those systems may provide better value for money. The mobile consumer centre is one of many experiments.

Mr. Cormack: Cannot mobile advice centres be conducted from the mobile libraries which already exist?

Mr. Alan Williams: I thought that Members of Parliament provided the best mobile service.

Mr. Adley: When the hon. Gentleman is considering the best way of passing information will he send a message, by whatever means he chooses, telling people

that if they go to Harrods they can buy subsidized butter at 10½p a pound? Does he think that that is a proper use of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman is wandering outside the range of the Question. He is trampling over ground which has already proved infertile to the Opposition. The Opposition should realize that and give up that battle.

Mr. Hordern: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could combine the rôle of mobile consumer advice information service on the record of the Labour Government? It had better be a service that is truly mobile.

Mr. Alan Williams: At least we should have something to talk about, as opposed to the negative information rôle of the Conservatives.

Social Contract

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied with the working of the social contract as it relates directly to her ministerial responsibility for controlling prices.

Mr. Macfarlane: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied that the social contract is working in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Alan Williams: In fulfilling the requirements of the contract for the consumer, the Government have contributed significantly towards curbing costs of primary concern to the poorer members of the community. But pay has over the past year been rising much faster than prices and the TUC recognises that there is little room for increases in real earnings if the Government are to be able to continue their contribution on other sides of the contract.

Mr. Adley: Now that the Secretary of State and the Minister are beginning to acknowledge the part that excessive wage claims are playing in breaching the social contract, what are she, he and the Government intending to do to exchange the social contract for an effective policy to tackle inflation?

Mr. Alan Williams: We shall certainly not enter into a policy that will lead us to a three-day working week.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Does the Minister agree with the remark of the National Institute that the social contract is compatible with any rate of inflation? If not, why does not he agree?

Mr. Alan Williams: The National Institute made its assessment. Everything depends on the degree to which unions observe the social contract. The TUC, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made that clear.

Mr. Lamont: It is not working.

Mr. Alan Williams: With a voluntary contract, of course there will be breaches, but the Opposition must be realistic and ask themselves what they would put in its place, which would work and not be as disruptive as was the system which they were forced to abandon after the three-day working week.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the statutory incomes policy which was introduced by the Conservative Government has been abandoned and the social contract has taken its place, will my hon. Friend say whether representations have been made by the Opposition to the Government suggesting an alternative to the social contract? Does my hon. Friend agree that wages have gone up because of the threshold agreements which were agreed privately and had to be honoured by the Labour Government?

Mr. Man Williams: Unfortunately, the Opposition are concerned solely with cheap political capital. They ignore the rôle played by threshold agreements and the pent-up special cases of phases 1, 2 and 3 in stoking up increases above the normal criterion of the social contract. Conservative Members can by all means make political capital, but at least let them also be constructive.

Mr. Biffen: Is it the view of the hon. Gentleman that a substantial rise in taxation would be consistent with the social contract?

Mr. Alan Williams: That is a question on taxation, which the hon. Gentleman should put where it belongs, namely, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Gow: Will the Minister confirm the answer which he gave a moment ago, namely, that an essential prerequisite for the success of the social contract is wage restraint by the unions?

Mr. Alan Williams: Of course I confirm it. That was also confirmed by the TUC, which said that there could be no meaningful increase in real earnings during the period of the social contract. That is what it is all about, and that is why we are trying to alert those negotiators who do not seem to realise the risks which breaches of the social contract can produce.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend confirm that an important element in the social contract is price control and that the Government have no intention of relaxing that control? Will he also confirm that within the voluntary arrangement there has been a remarkable degree of success, in that 75 per cent. of wage settlements have been within the terms of the social contract?

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Until the end of January, 75 per cent. of the workers who settled did so within the social contract. As for price controls, my hon. Friend will know that we have recently introduced our revision of the Price Code, which may sectors of industry are still attacking as being too tight. We made these revisions to meet representations about the investment requirements of industry.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she has ruled out as her policy for the indefinite future her proposal in paragraph 13 of the Consultative Document on the Prices Code to impose penalties on employers obliged to concede wage claims in excess of the social contract guidelines.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I cannot speak about the indefinite future. For the present and foreseeable future, I have made it clear to the House that a scheme for a differential productivity deduction depended on the consent of both sides of industry, and this was not forthcoming.

Mr. Lamont: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition would consider it extremely unfair to penalise employers in this way, particularly when


they might be faced with bankruptcy by responding to such pressures? Does she further agree that measures of this kind would simply introduce by the back door the very statutory policy which the Labour Government have set their face against?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: No, I do not accept that that is so, because there is already an element of diffential productivity deduction between capital-intensive and labour-intensive firms. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman was rejected by the CBI and has not since been pressed.

Mr. McNamara: Does my right hon. Friend think it would have worked?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It might have worked, but only with the consent of both sides.

Cost of Living

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether the cost of living index for retirement pensioners and the poor and low-paid rose faster or more slowly than the index for the average wage earner during 1974.

Mr. Maclennan: The retail price indices for one-person and two-person pensioner households rose 18·4 per cent. and 18·2 per cent. respectively between the fourth quarter of 1973 and the fourth quarter of 1974. The general retail price index, on a comparable basis, rose by 19·4 per cent. No official indices are available for the poor or low-paid.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Why are no such indices available, why was the gap so small last year. and what changes in Government policy are necessary to ensure that there is a gap at all this year?

Mr. Maclennan: The position of pensioners has been assisted, as my hon. Friend knows, by exceptionally large pension increases. He may be interested to know that the food index increases have been considerably more beneficial for the pensioner than they have in regard to the general index.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that pensioners living in rural areas are particularly hard hit because of the rise

in the cost of public and private transport? What does he propose to do to help them?

Mr. Maclennan: Since I represent a rural constituency which has an elderly population, I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will be aware that the Government are considering the possibility of introducing a two-tier petrol pricing system and that all possible steps are being taken to deal with the point he made. He will also be aware that there is to be an increase in pensions in April and, later in the year, another increase to take account of rises in the cost of living.

Mr. Cormack: Does the Minister accept that many of us view with dismay the fact that the Government are thinking seriously of a two-tier petrol pricing system? Does his answer not illustrate the ridiculous nature of the Government's policy on food subsidies—in other words, that those who need help are not being assisted to the best advantage by this system, which squanders public money?

Mr. Maclennan: I hope the hon. Gentleman, in turn, is aware that this is the first time the pensioner index has risen less rapidly than has the general retail price index.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend go further and say that food subsidies have played a large part in what has happened to the index but that the amount of support administratively is small compared with the system operated by the Conservative Government in earlier years?

Mr. Maclennan: Whereas food subsidies have saved 6·38 points on the food index and 1·61 points on the retail price index, they have saved 7·91 and 7·13 points respectively in the food indices relating to one-person and two-person pensioner households. My hon. Friend is entirely correct.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Does the Minister agree that to pensioners prices are a weekly disaster? Since the present Prime Minister said in February 1974, when in opposition, that there were 100 reasons for getting rid of the Conservative Government and that foremost among them was the question of prices, does the Minister not agree that the pensioner is now in an invidious position? Further,


what does he propose to do about the increases in postal charges which are operative from today?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the answer, which showed that for the first time for a number of years the position of pensioners has improved in relation to price increases for the public generally. I hope he will take a more constructive line in future if we have to consider the reintroduction of food subsidies, which are particularly important.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Does the Minister recall that in the last election the Chancellor said—and I quote his words:
As from Easter there would be a steady and continuous fall in prices. That obviously would be an immense help to the pensioner.
Does he still expect that to happen? If not, what has changed?

Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say the words which the hon. Gentleman has attributed to him.

Later—

Mr. Norman Lamont: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my supplementary question, I quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer as having said that there would be a steady and continuous fall in prices as from next Easter—a statement which the Under-Secretary of State denied had been made by the Chancellor. Before giving notice that I should like to ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask whether the Under-Secretary would now like to take advantage of the opportunity—as I have checked with the Library —to withdraw his denial of the Chancellor's having made that statement?

Mr. Maclennan: I recognise that there is a difficulty here, in that it is not open to hon. Members to quote directly by reading at Question Time, but my understanding is that the hon. Gentleman misrepresented by right hon. Friend on this matter. However, if the hon. Gentleman proposes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, doubtless it can be exhaustively debated.

Bakers (Wholesale Discounts)

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will amend the regulations governing discounts granted by bakers to wholesale customers.

Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend has no proposals at present for amending the arrangements introduced on 13th January, but we shall continue to keep their operation under close review.

Mr. Goodlad: Is the Minister aware that the distribution costs of dairy companies distributing bread from milk floats is substantially higher than the distribution costs of supermarkets? Will he accept that if dairy companies withdraw from this activity owing to lack of profitability, the result will bear heavily on old people in rural areas who rely on this service for their bread? Will he reconsider this serious interference with the normal trading pattern?

Mr. Maclennan: The special position of those delivering in rural areas, as agents or franchisemen, has been recognised in the system. Substantially larger discounts are permitted than are permitted to the multiples.

Fish (Reserve Price)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what consultations took place between her Department and the Hull trawler owners before the new reserve price for fish on the Hull market was raised by 70 per cent. to a minimum of £13 a kit, an increase of £5.

Mr. Maclennan: None. The matter was raised with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the sponsor Department for the fish industry in England and Wales. The new reserve price remains below the average level of prices at the quayside, so the increase should not affect retail prices. My right hon. Friend is proposing to ask the Price Commission to undertake a study of prices and margins in the distribution of fish. An announcement will be made shortly about the scope of the study.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department of Fisheries


is kept constantly informed in all these matters? The price of £13 a kit is below the average for last year, which was from £17 to £19. We all deplore the fact that some fish goes to the fishmeal plant and some which is sent to the plant is not the worst fish, or else it would have been condemned by the inspectors. Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that if we are to sell at quayside prices of £7 to £8 a kit, it means that vessels will be tied up, and that this in turn, will mean unemployment for our people—both deckhands and skippers?

Mr. Maclennan: I am aware of the points to which my hon. Friend refers. It must be made plain that the trawler owners are not raising prices but are simply increasing the price levels below which they will not offer their fish for sale for human consumption. My hon. Friend is also correct about the fish being removed from the market, but I think he will agree that it is a small quantity.

Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that the price of fish at the quayside is now considerably lower than it was in 1966? How does he explain that the price in the shops is considerably higher? Is that part of his Minister's planning?

Mr. Maclennan: The fall in the quayside price of fish is due, in part, to exceptionally large stocks being held in deep freeze, and, in part, to the diversion of Norwegian fish to this market. The difference between quayside prices and the prices that the housewife has to pay in the shops will be the subject of the study by the Price Commission, which I have announced.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

European Economic Community

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will consult with the British Overseas Trade Board on the desirability of continued membership of the EEC; and if he will make a statement on such discussions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): Consultation, on the renegotiated terms, will take place with the nation as a whole, through the referendum. However, as its president, my right hon. Friend always welcomes

discussion of issues of concern to the British Overseas Trade Board.

Mr. Renton: Would it not be right for the Secretary of State to consult the board on the vital issue of EEC membership, as the board was set up specifically to oversee the whole question of export promotion? Can it be that the Secretary of State is not consulting it because he is aware that it would give the answer "Stay in the EEC", which runs contrary to his predetermined prejudice to get out?

Mr. Deakins: The board has made known to me, my right hon. Friend and others the importance which it attaches to markets in Western Europe as well as in other parts of the world. I share those views. However, renegotiation embraces issues beyond immediate commercial considerations.

Mr. McNamara: What is our present trade deficit with the EEC?

Mr. Deakins: It is currently running at about £2,300 million—£2,400 million.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister agree that it is interesting not only that 30 per cent. of our total exports now go to the EEC but that 10 per cent. of the other member nations' exports come to us? Is not that a fantastically compelling trade argument for the future?

Mr. Deakins: It is indeed an important trade argument for the future. Whether or not we remain in the EEC, Western Europe will continue to be a major area of concern and activity for British business.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interpretations put on the balance of payments deficit figures are many and varied, even within the Cabinet, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has a very different interpretation from that of my hon. Friend, because my right hon. Friend has been at the negotiating table in the past 12 months? If we get out of the Common Market, which we are all beginning to doubt, does my hon. Friend think that our trade with Europe will go up or down?

Mr. Deakins: The figures of our trade with the Common Market are of great concern and import not only to the House but to business men and the people of


this country. Whether or not we stay in, Western Europe will continue to be a major area for British trade. I am sure that it would be the aim of any Government of this country, whatever the circumstances, to ensure that we had a satisfactory trading relationship with Western Europe.

Mr. Moate: Do not the true interests of British exporters lie not so much in membership of the Common Market but in maximising free trade throughout the world? Has not more been achieved by past GATT negotiations, and, one hopes, the present GATT negotiations, than by the Common Market?

Mr. Deakins: I should not like to offer an opinion on the question whether GATT has meant more for free trade than the Common Market, EFTA or any other regional grouping. This Government are dedicated to the principle of free trade, and I hope will long remain so.

Mr. Cryer: As there is apparently no food price advantage from remaining in the Common Market, does my hon. Friend agree that with a £2,300 million-£2,400 million annual deficit, which my hon. Friend has just revealed, the conclusion is that we should get out of the market, especially when the power of this Parliament is being handed over to bureaucrats in Brussels? Will my hon. Friend confirm that trading arrangements will be able to continue, probably improved, through EFTA and GATT?

Mr. Deakins: Future trading arrangements between Britain and the Common Market will be a matter for negotiation if the British people should vote "No" in the referendum. If they vote "Yes", our trading relationships will continue on the present pattern. Our interest after the referendum, if the referendum vote is affirmative, will be to ensure the freest possible trade between this country and the many growing markets throughout the world outside Western Europe.

Mr. Higgins: In answering questions about the deficit with the EEC, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that he puts it in context, against the background of the deficit as a whole? Will he deplore the attempts of some Labour Members who are against membership of the EEC to fight a campaign by innuendo at Ques-

tion Time, when the true issues should be set out clearly?

Mr. Deakins: Having worked for a long time in industry, I am all in favour of using statistics in the appropriate context and not forcing them into an inappropriate context. The deficit with the Common Market must be seem in the context not only of our total trade deficit but of our total non-oil trading deficit, as the oil deficit greatly distorts our trading relationships with two-thirds of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Conservation

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many staff his Department has engaged in lecturing to voluntary organisations such as Women's Institutes, Mother's Union, and so on, about how to conserve energy in the home.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): None of my staff is engaged specifically for lecturing voluntary organisations on how to conserve energy in the home.

Mr. McCrindle: Is that not evidence of a major oversight by the Government? Should not the housewife be the natural ally of the Minister's Department in conserving fuel? Is it not correct to say that if even a 5 per cent. saving of energy were to be the result of a campaign by the Government directed at housewives, a large part of the problem which the shortage of energy and the energy price have presented to the Government would be solved?

Mr. Eadie: I have some sympathy with that point of view, but I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the Government have undertaken a massive publicity campaign, aimed primarily at the householder and other consumers. The hon. Gentleman will probably agree—he appreciates that conservation of energy is important for the country—that officials and technical experts should, as part of their normal functions, concentrate their available time on industry, where consumption is nearly double that of the domestic sector, and represents over two-fifths of the consumption of the whole country.

Mr. Lipton: Could we not have a lecture, at some time, on how to conserve energy in the House?

Mr. Eadie: If my hon. Friend is enthusiastic about that, we could probably appoint a workmen's inspector in the House to go into the matter.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister agree that the most efficient form of promoting economy is a good, swingeing price increase?

Mr. Eadie: No, Sir. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is no question but that the days of cheap energy have gone. It is in the interests of the consumer and the country that we should try to conserve energy, because that will be beneficial to the individual and the nation.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that one useful way of achieving energy savings would be for people from his Department to lecture to organisations such as the Women's Institute about some of the dangers of the miner's job and the difficulties of his life, so that the middle-class housewives who take part in the activities of such organisations have some appreciation of the real issues—which was not shown by some of the comments made during recent disputes in the mining industry?

Mr. Eadie: I think that my hon. Friend has a problem here. This is a political issue. I think that education is important. Although it is the responsibility of the Department of Energy, I have no doubt that the Workers' Educational Association and, perhaps, the resuscitation of the National Council of Labour Colleges will make the contribution of which my hon. Friend is thinking.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does the Minister accept that the increasing price of energy is due largely to Government misjudgment over a period of years, in that they have sought to produce electricity from expensive coal instead of by cheap, humane and clean nuclear means, which Governments persistently neglect?

Mr. Eadie: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The biggest factor in relation to the steep increase in electricity is facts. We were talking about facts. The facts are that we are now paying

£3,500 million from our balance of payments for very expensive oil. If, in the past, the Opposition had given us some support for a proper energy policy, giving coal and all the other indigenous sources of energy their proper bias, today's problem might not have been as large as it is now.

Mr. Prior: Perhaps we can save a little energy by not having the blinds drawn when the sun is not shining.

MR. SHELEPIN (VISA)

Mr. Goodhew: Mr. Goodhew(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking consequent upon the application to our embassy in Moscow for a visa to enable Mr. Shelepin to visit this country.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Mr. Shelepin has applied for a visa to enable him to lead a Soviet trade union delegation to this country for a short period for discussions with members of the Trades Union Congress. After careful consideration, I can find no ground on which it would be proper for me to refuse this application. The power vested in me to refuse an applicant whose presence would not be conducive to the public good should be used only to safeguard national interests and not to express moral approval or disapproval of a particular person or a particular visit. I have therefore granted the application.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the admission of this ex-leader of the KGB, and therefore an organiser of political assassination, will be an affront to the people of this country as well as to the many refugees here?

Mr. Russell Kerr: You are sabotaging détente.

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman can speak for the Kremlin, but not for me.
Is the Home Secretary also aware that his arrival in the guise of trade union chief is an affront to the free trade unions in this country? Why is it that under the pressure from his Left wing he is standing by and allowing this man to


enter this country? Does he want to see trouble in the streets of Britain?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not notable for surrender to pressure from my Left wing. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have considered this matter most carefully, and I can find no precedent for behaving as the hon. Gentleman is apparently urging me to do. I know, for instance, to cite only one example, that Mr. Serov, who was currently head of the KGB, was admitted here in 1956 together with Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most Government supporters think that he has taken the right course of action? There are no real grounds for the Home Office refusing a visa to Mr. Shelepin, although many Government supporters fervently wish that the TUC had not invited him. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the representations which many of us are receiving may make it difficult to guarantee Mr. Shelepin's safety whilst in this country?

Mr. Jenkins: I understand. my hon. Friend's point of view. As I indicated in my initial answer, I do not believe that I should use the procedure which I have available to me on matters of taste or distaste. I would not have thought that the question of safety arose. No doubt there may be some demonstrations, which I hope will be peaceful, if people wish to demonstrate. That is a right which we preserve and which I am determined to preserve. But the view I have also taken is that—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) would keep quiet instead of muttering constantly. I maintain that it is not right to prevent marches by, for instance, the National Front because of actions which they might provoke by other people. It is difficult to maintain the correct balance in these matters. However, I endeavour to do so, even without the assistance of my hon. Friend, in the best way that I can.

Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Mr. Malenkov, Stalin's henchman, came here

some years ago, we showed him a great deal of the free way of life. He came here as leader of a deputation of electricians. Not long after his return to Russia, he was exiled to Siberia.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the information which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to me in the House was at the back of my mind, but fairly far back, and I have therefore received with interest what he has said.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is generally accepted that he is in a difficult position and that this decision in no way indicates what are his personal views, which must surely be as abhorrent of the background of this gentleman as those of any other hon. Member. Has the Foreign Secretary made clear that the abhorrence which is felt for Mr. Shelepin and all that he stands for may make itself felt, and that whilst we hope that it will be peaceful, it will be vocal and may not assist Anglo-Soviet relations?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that it is an open question whether this visit will assist Anglo-Soviet relations. That must be. borne in mind. I do not wish to do anything to harm Anglo-Soviet relations. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is certainly no part of my duty to say that I expect demonstrations to take place. I expect that if they take place they will be peaceful, as should all demonstrations.

Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while many Government supporters agree that this is not a case in which it would be appropriate for him to intervene on the question of a visa, there are many trade unionists who are deeply unhappy about the visit, who feel that Mr. Shelepin does not represent trade unionism in Russia or elsewhere, and who hope that my right hon. Friend or the TUC will reconsider its decision to extend the invitation?

Mr. Jenkins: I take very careful note, as I am sure does the House, of what my hon. Friend says, but I think that she will agree that these are matters for the Trades Union Congress and not for me or the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Following representations, the business for the remainder of the week has been rearranged as follows:

TUESDAY 18TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Social Security Pensions Bill.

Motion on the Prices Act 1974 (Continuation of Section 2) Order.

Proceedings on the following consolidation Bills—the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) and Social Security, and the Northern Ireland Bills, and Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 19TH MARCH—Remaining stages of the Oil Taxation Bill.

THURSDAY 20TH MARCH—Debate on the motion on Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties, until seven o'clock.

Afterwards, a debate on the Textile industry, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion relating to the Firearms Certificates and Permits (Northern Ireland) Order.

FRIDAY 21ST MARCH—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 24TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill.

Motion on the Census Order.

Remaining stages of the Reservoirs Bill [Lords].

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which is fairly helpful, but I should be grateful if he could confirm that the Attorney-General will be taking part in the Second Reading debate on the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Short: My right hon. and learned Friend is in Strasbourg this week engaged on a case about Northern Ireland arising out of the last Government's administration. But certainly he will be back next week.

Mr. Peyton: What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was whether he could confirm that the Attorney-General would be taking part in the debate.

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. He will.

Mr. David Steel: Will right hon. Gentleman arrange for a written account of the change of business to be made widely available?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I very much regret that this has had to be done quickly and at short notice. I shall ensure that it is made available to the hon. Gentleman and to the other parties.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the public ownership of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
A Bill containing these proposals will be brought before the House shortly after Easter.
I am circulating in the Official Report and have made available in the Vote Office a full statement of the Government's proposals for the shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industry following discussions with many interested parties on the discussion paper which I published on 31st July 1974. I am grateful to all those who sent in comments on the discussion paper and took part in the consultations.
Turning now to the aircraft industry, I have received a number of comments on the consultative document which I published on 15th January 1975, and I am still considering some aspects of these. I can, however, now announce that the Government have decided in the light of representations made to me to alter the criteria governing the scope of public ownership to include companies with a turnover, including that of subsidiaries, of over £7½ million instead of over £20 million in the relevant year. The effect of this will be to include Scottish Aviation Ltd.
Next, I wish to outline the proposals for compensation which the Government intend to put before the House in the forthcoming Bill, in respect of both aircraft and shipbuilding companies.
Compensation will be determined by reference to the value of the securities of the companies to be acquired. Securities


quoted on a recognised stock exchange will be valued at their average price during the six months ending 28th February 1974, subject to any necessary adjustment to take account of rights or capitalisation issues. The value of unquoted securities will be determined, as if they had been quoted during the same period, by agreement between the Secretary of State and a stockholders' representative or, in default of agreement, by arbitration. No deduction will be made from the values so determined in respect of Government aid given before 28th February 1974.
The value of the securities may be held to depend in part on expectations about future Government aid of a discretionary kind. Such expectations will not be taken into account in valuing for compensation unless the terms of the aid had been settled with the company by the 28th February 1974.
There will be separate provision for debts owed by any company to be acquired to companies or persons closely associated with the company—that is to say, inter-company debts. These will be treated in appropriate cases as securities and valued accordingly. Genuine short-term inter-company debts will be compensated in full.
An appropriate deduction will be made from the compensation if a company's assets have been dissipated in anticipation of nationalisation between 28th February 1974 and 17th March 1975. A deduction may also be made for reductions in inter-company debt after 28th February 1974.
The Secretary of State will be open to receive representations from interested persons whether shareholders or other about the value to be placed on securities under the legislation and in the event of arbitration may bring such representations to the attention of the arbitrator.
Finally, I am circulating in the Official Report and have made available in the Vote Office a summary of the provisions which will be in the Bill to safeguard the assets of the aircraft and shipbuilding companies to be taken into public ownership in the period up to vesting day. No company will be penalised as a result of action taken in the normal course of business and in good faith, and commercial contracts, including those with the

Government, will remain binding on the new corporations.
The Government reserve the right to strengthen these provisions in the event of serious dissipation of the assets of companies to be nationalised or the adoption of other devices to frustrate the manifest objectives of nationalisation. Any such strengthening may be retrospective in its effect.

Mr. Heseltine: will the Secretary of State understand that I cannot comment on the basis of compensation in view of the period of notice that I received of these terms?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his estimate of the likely total cost of this Bill? Will he also tell us what in his view will be the relationship between the cost of compensation and the underlying assets involved in the companies to be nationalised?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the underlying basis of valuation with reference to the six-month period ended 28th February 1974 as a basis of valuation will be open to arbitration in the way that the other arbitration provisions apply?
Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what further plans the Government may have for the control of defence sales?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman understand that his decision to use one Bill to mix two dissimilar industries and bring them forward for nationalisation will be resented widely in this House and will be resisted totally by the Opposition?

Mr. Benn: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get the statement in time and in accordance with normal procedures. He will appreciate that where compensation figures are involved there is a very strong commercial security element. But I tried to ensure that the hon. Gentleman got it on the normal basis.
As to cost, it is not possible for me to give a precise figure. It is bound to depend in some cases on arbitration.
On the relative values of shares—[Interruption.] The Government may be involved in arbitration on these matters, as I made clear—[Interruption.] If the House wants to hear my answer, I must be given a chance to answer. For the


reasons that I have given and as I made clear in my statement, in the event of a valuation going to arbitration it is not possible to anticipate precisely what the amount will be, and therefore I cannot answer the question precisely. For the same reason—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) can come back if he is not satisfied with my answer. I am answering the question as I understood it. For the same reason, the share and asset value comparisons cannot be made.
As to the reference period, this will be provided for in the legislation in accordance with my statement and, therefore, would not itself be the subject of arbitration. It is not possible to arbitrate about whether the legislation should have been different.
The hon. Gentleman asked about defence sales. I take it that he means defence production. There will be special provision for defence requirements.
As for the acquisition of these two industries by a single Bill, this will not prevent the House handling the matter in the proper manner.

Mr. Thorpe: On the question of cost, surely even the right hon. Gentleman can round it off to the nearest £1,000 million.
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that if we remain in the European Community we shall not be inhibited from carrying on with this legislation by reason of our membership?
Finally, since only 39 per cent. of the British voters supported this, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a referendum so that the workers in those firms may say whether they are in favour of this crazy course of action?

Mr. Benn: On the question of cost, I do not think that I can add to the answer which I have given already. Since the valuation may depend upon arbitration, it would not be sensible for the Government in advance of a possible arbitration to indicate the range of figures which we thought might emerge from arbitration.
As to the rôle of the Commission in respect of the powers of a shipbuilding corporation, this would be entirely subject to Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's final question, if he ever visited his constituents in the yard in his constituency he would know how much they welcomed the public ownership that was possible last summer.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend say rather more precisely when the Bill will come forward, as we look forward eagerly to its presentation? Dates count rather a lot.
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that shipyard workers on Tyneside have made and repeated only today their declaration of strong support for nationalisation and their eagerness to take part in full participation in the industry in the future?

Mr. Benn: I am well aware of the warm support for public ownership amongst those who work in the shipbuilding industry. As regards the exact time of the legislation, I hope to introduce the Bill after Easter, recalling that Easter is a moveable feast.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who asked for Scottish Aviation to be nationalised? Further, will he tell the House whether Britten Norman, which I understand has a turnover of between £15 million and £20 million, will be similarly affected? Will the money spent by the companies concerned between now and the enactment of the Bill, if that day should ever come, be deducted from the compensation? Will the money spent by those companies on campaigns against nationalisation be deducted from the compensation?

Mr. Benn: I received representations regarding Scottish Aviation from a number of people and I will provide—

Hon. Members: Who?

Mr. Benn: I will provide Conservative hon. Members with a list of people who made the representations. There is no change as regards Britten Norman. Unfortunately, I cannot tell the House without notice whether the large amounts of money that have been spent to try to influence the Government by public advertisement will or will not count as a business expense. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for alerting me to that possibility.

Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the Bill? Will he confirm that representations have been made to him by all the managements, by most of the workers, if not all of the trade unions, and by all the MPs who came to see him from almost every party in the House asking for decentralisation of the industry and concede that that is in the Bill?

Mr. Benn: As I indicated before—and I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned it now—we do not wish to establish a highly centralised control of either shipbuilding or the aircraft industry. These points have been made to me in representations and I think that I have been able to satisfy those people who have put them to me. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, whatever view might have been held initially by people opposed to public ownership, there is general agreement that, given that this is the policy, the sooner we can proceed with it the better.

Mr. Pattie: The Secretary of State has said that no company will be penalised as a result of action taken in the normal course of business. Does he mean that the money committed by airframe companies to existing ongoing projects will be repaid in full and in lump sums?

Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Gentleman will want to look at the statement. It is obviously very carefully drafted. On-going business in the normal course of business will not have been to the disadvantage of the firms concerned. Of course there has to be special provision to see that there has not been dissipation of assets. Whereas past aid is not taken into account for reasons that will be apparent, expectations of future aid cannot be held to justify a claim against the Government based on aid that the company might expect from Government.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many thousands of millions of pounds have gone to the succour of the private aviation industry since 1950?

Mr. Benn: Of course, enormous sums of public money have gone in to the industry. The figure for the shipbuilding industry is £169 million. For the aircraft industry the figure is larger. Some of the

money has gone to projects like the Concorde, that project being initiated by the Government of the day.

Mr. Peyton: As the right hon. Gentleman was so free with those figures, will he make some special effort to overcome this unusual shyness of his and explain to the House how much the Bill will cost? It is quite without precedent that a nationalisation proposal has been announced without declaring some estimate of the cost.

Mr. Benn: Obviously the Government have estimates that they have made as best they can of the likely cost. The House will fully understand that where the Government might find themselves I say "might", but we hope to get a valuation by agreement—engaged in arbitration it would not necessarily be sensible to give to others the figures in advance.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: As this is a very important statement which will affect the lives of several thousands of workers in my constituency and in many other constituencies, will my right hon. Friend ensure that if necessary special arrangements are made so that the whole of the statement and all the details that he has given are available in the Vote Office as the Official Report is not available?

Mr. Benn: I have specially provided that copies will be in the Vote Office. If my hon. Friend has any reason to believe that an adequate number of copies is not available I shall see that further copies are rolled off and made available. In view of what my hon. Friend has said I shall make a special effort to see that copies are available in the plants and areas where shipbuilding workers are concerned.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for a date long since past being used as a basis of compensation for nationalisation? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the asset values of the companies concerned? The figures are already generally known and are adjusted on an almost daily basis. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House an accurate assessment now that is based on what are known to be the daily asset values of these companies com-


pared with the market price of the shares in February? Does he not accept that any compensation should be based more nearly on the assets of the company and not on the market price at any particular date, however selected, which was largely due to his actions and inactions when he had responsibility.

Mr. Benn: I am advised that to attempt a valuation on behalf of the owners of the companies and to put it forward as a Government view would not be sensible or practical. Nor would it be my task to seek to represent for the companies the valuation concerned. The iron and steel industry nationalisation provides some precedent for what has been done today. I thought it right and proper that the reference period should lie before the first election date on which the Labour Government were returned to power so that the charge could not be laid—and it might have been laid—that the values had been affected by the election of a Government committed to the public ownership of these two industries.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept my good wishes from Tyneside? Does he appreciate that the people of Tyneside, including my constituents, will welcome the Bill and will be delighted that two items of nationalisation are to be combined if that will mean expedition? Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents are prepared to see fair compensation but not more? Does he agree that Conservative hon. Members seem extremely profligate with public funds when they argue that public compensation should be considerably larger than it may be as a result of these proposals?

Mr. Benn: I have always made it clear that fair compensation is the right policy for us to pursue. I have been pressed on this on a number of occasions. I would not have recommended the scheme if I did not think that what was being proposed was fair. Having said that, there has been pressure from the trade unions concerned—notably the General and Municipal Workers' Union—for an assessment board before which the trade unions could make their representations on the valuation of the shares. I have not accepted that proposal. As my hon. Friend will have noticed in my statement, I said that representations from anybody could he made to me and that I would

be in a position to pass them on to the arbitrator. That would include representations from the unions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether shipbuilding will expand or contract under public ownership? Does he agree that the terms of compensation that he has set out represent bare-faced robbery, observing that the six-month period that he has chosen is the time during which market prices were distorted by dividend restraint?

Mr. Benn: As regards the hon. Gentleman's latter point. I do not believe that that is the case. We have looked carefully at the Financial Times index and the industrial index. There has been a fall over the period as between the reference period and the present period. There has, however, been some speculation in this stock on the advice in some newspapers that the terms of compensation might be on a different basis. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I certainly hope that proper investment and better organisation and greater industrial democracy will mean that in future the industry will do better than it has done over the past 25 years.

Following is the information:

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF SHIPBUILDING, SHIPREPAIR AND SLOW SPEED DIESEL MARINE ENGINE INDUSTRIES

WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY

The scope of public ownership

1. The Government has decided that the objectives of public ownership will be achieved by nationalising companies incorporated in Great Britain which meet the following definitions. A list of the companies which meet each of the definitions is annexed to this statement.

(i) Shipbuilding Companies. Companies which on 31st July 1974 were entitled, either alone or together with another company which was then a member of the same group of companies, to an interest in possession in a shipyard which on that date was being used for the construction of ships and in which in the period of three years ending on that date were completed ships the total tonnage of which, when aggregated with the total tonnage of ships completed in the same period in shipyards in which any other company in the same group was entitled to an interest in possession, exceeded either:—

(a) 750 standard displacement tons in respect of warships, or
(b) 15,000 gross tons in respect of other ships, or


(c) 500 standard displacement tons in respect of warships and 10,000 gross tons in respect of other ships.
(ii) Shiprepair Companies. Companies which:—
(a) on 31st July 1974 were engaged in the business of repairing, refitting, converting or maintaining ships; and
(b) on that date were entitled to an interest in possession in a dry-dock or graving-dock; and
(c) whose turnover for the relevant financial year when aggregated with the turnover for the relevant financial year of all their subsidiaries or fellow subsidiaries engaged in the business referred to in sub-paragraph (a) exceeded £3·4 million. For this purpose relevant financial year in relation to a company means that one of the company's financial years, within the meaning of the Companies Act 1948, for which accounts were last laid before it in general meeting before 31st July 1974.
(iii) Slow Speed Diesel Marine Engine Manufacturers. Companies which on 31st July 1974 were engaged in the business of manufacturing diesel engines:—

(a) designed for use for the main propulsion of ships; and
(b) designed to deliver continuously at a crankshaft speed of less than 160 revolutions per minute, a power output greater than 4,000 horsepower as measured under the operating conditions specified in the British Standard Specifications published on 19th February 1958 under the number BS649: 1958 (specification for the performance of reciprocating compression—ignition (diesel) engines, utilising liquid fuel only, for general purposes).
(iv) Training Companies. A company which on 31st July 1974:—

(a) was engaged in the business of training persons in any of the skills required for the repairing, refitting, conversion, maintenance and construction of ships; and
(b) was a member of a group of companies of which another member fulfilled the criteria in paragraph i or ii above.

Effect of public ownership on companies
2. The Bill will provide for the establishment of a public corporation, to be called British Shipbuilders, in which the shares of the companies to be nationalised will be vested. This means that the companies will be nationalised as going concerns.

Organisation under public ownership

3. The Secretary of State will appoint the Chairman and other members of the public corporation numbering between seven and twenty. After the Second Reading of the Bill it is intended to set up an Organising Committee consisting of the Chairman Designate and a nucleus of other members of the new Corporation which will work in close consultation with the Government, the managements

and the trade unions in preparing detailed plans for vesting and for the initial organisation.
4. It will be for the Organising Committee and the Corporation to propose the detailed structure of the organisation in close consultation with the representatives of those who work in the industry and with its customers. The Corporation will be able to adapt its organisation in response to changing conditions. At the same time the Government and Parliament must be concerned with the main features of the organisation of a big publicly owned industry. The legislation will therefore require the Corporation to submit from time to time to the Secretary of State reports on the broad structure of its organisation after full consultations with the representative organisations of those working in the industry. These reports will be laid before Parliament. The Secretary of State's approval will be necessary to implement the proposed initial organisation or any subsequent major change. The Secretary of State will also have powers to give the Corporation specific directions on the main features of its organisation. The Government feels sure that the Organising Committee and the Corporation will give full weight to the view of many on both sides of industry that individual shipyards should be given as much responsibility as is consistent with the discharge of the Corporation's functions.
5. The headquarters of the Corporation will be in an assisted area with a tradition of shipbuilding.

Industrial democracy
6. The Government attaches great importance to developing industrial democracy in the shipbuilding, shiprepair and marine engine industries. The comments on the Government's discussion paper of 31st July 1974 have shown that those working in the industry have important and constructive ideas on how this development can be brought about. The flexible arrangements for the organisation of British Shipbuilders will provide scope for the natural and organic growth of industrial democracy taking into account the views and proposals put forward by management, workers and trade unions concerned. The Government will consider provisions in the Bill to encourage and assist this growth.

Powers and duties
7. The main duty of the Corporation will be to promote the efficient and economical design, development, production, sale, repair and maintenance of ships and slow speed diesel marine engines and to promote related research using the skills and talents of all those working in the industry to the full. The Corporation will also be required to have full regard to the essential needs of national defence.
8. The Secretary of State will have power to give the Corporation directions, to approve annually its corporate plan, its capital investment and reseach and development programmes and its annual budgets, to monitor progress against annual budgets and to obtain information.
9. To allow flexibility for the future, provision will be made for some of the main powers and duties of the Corporation and


the powers of the Secretary of State to be capable of amendment by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
10. Finance will be provided by loans on normal terms from the National Loans Fund and by public dividend capital. The Secretary of State will set a financial objective for the Corporation.
11. The Corporation will not be restricted by its formal powers from undertaking activities which would utilise its resources (including the skills of its workers) in the national interest and allow it to take favourable opportunities to adapt efficiently to changing economic circumstances. The Corporation will therefore have wide powers to diversify its activities, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, where this does not conflict with its main duties.
12. The Corporation will have power subject to the Secretary of State's consent to acquire by agreement shareholdings in other companies whether at home or overseas and to enter into partnerships. The Corporation will also have the necessary powers to provide technical assistance overseas.
13. It will remain Government policy to allow shipowners to build and repair at home or abroad according to their commercial judgment.

ANNEX

LIST OF COMPANIES MEETING THE DEFINITIONS

I. Shipbuilding Companies

1. The Swan Hunter Group Limited's shipbuilding companies, which comprise:
Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Limited.
Smith's Dock Company Ltd.
The Goole Shipbuilding &amp; Repairing Co. Ltd.
Clelands Shipbuilding Company Ltd. (now a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goole Shipbuilding &amp; Repairing Co. Ltd.).
2. Vickers Shipbuilding Group Limited.
3. Scott Lithgow Limited's shipbuilding companies, which comprise:
Lithgow's Limited.
Scott's Shipbuilding Company Limited.
Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Limited.
Scott and Sons (Bowling) Limited.
4. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Limited (50 per cent. of the ordinary shares owned by Government).
5. Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited.
6. Vosper Thorneycroft Limited.
7. Austin &amp; Pickersgill Limited.
8. Robb Caledon Shipbuilders Limited.
9. Drypool Group Limited.
10. Brooke Marine Limited.
11. Hall Russell &amp; Company Ltd.
12. Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited (100 per cent. Government owned).

13. Govan Shipbuilders Limited (100 per cent. Government owned).
14. Appledore Shipbuilders Limited (100 per cent. Government owned).

II. Shiprepair Companies

15. The Swan Hunter Group Limited's ship-repair companies, which comprise:
Swan Hunter Shiprepairers Tyne Limited.
The Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company Ltd.
The Grangemouth Dockyard Company Limited (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Smith's Dock Company Ltd., listed above)
16. The P. &amp; O. Steam Navigation Company's shiprepairing companies which have an interest in the possession of a dry dock:
R. &amp; H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd.
Silley Cox &amp; Company Ltd. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of R. &amp; H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd).
17. The Humber Graving Dock and Engineering Company Ltd.
18. North East Coast Shiprepairers Ltd (100 per cent. Government owned).
19. The Laird Group Limited's shiprepairing companies, which comprise:
J. B. Howie Ltd., trading as C.B.S. Engineering Company Western Ship-repairers Limited.
20. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
21. The London Graving Dock Company Ltd.
22. Scott Lithgow Drydocks Limited.

III Slow Speed Diesel Marine Engine Manufacturers
23. Scotts' Engineering Company Limited.
24. Doxford Engines Limited (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited, at 12 above).
25. John G Kincaid &amp; Company Limited.
26. George Clark &amp; N.E.M. Limited.
27. Hawthorn Leslie (Engineers) Ltd.
28. Barclay, Curie &amp; Company Limited

IV Training Companies
29. Swan Hunter Training and Safety Company Limited.
30. Yarrow (Training) Limited.
31. The Scott Lithgow framing Centre Limited.

Safeguarding provisions for the Aircraft, Shipbuilding, Shiprepairing and Marine Engineering Industries

The Bill will contain provisions to establish two corporate undertakings to which the securities of companies in lists A and B respectively will be transferred on a date to be specified as the vesting date in the Bill. The effect of the provision outlined in paragraph 6 below is that the securities of a company other than one in lists A or B may be transferred to the relevant Corporation and they may be transferred at a date later than the date specified in the Bill. The


following provisions apply not only to companies whose securities are transferred to the relevant undertaking but also to the wholly owned subsidiaries of those companies which subsidiaries effectively come into public ownership when the securities of those holding companies are transferred to the relevant Corporation. The "relevant date" where occurring in paragraphs 1 to 11 is 31st July 1974 for those companies in list A and 4th November 1974 for those companies in list B. The "relevant date" where occurring in paragraphs 12 to 19 is 17th March 1975 for all the companies in lists A and B.

The Corporations' Power to Disclaim Leases or Agreements

1. The Bill will contain provision enabling the relevant Corporation within 6 months of the date of transfer of a company coming into public ownership, to direct the company to disclaim any lease or agreement made or varied on or after the relevant date by the company where it considers that the making of the agreement or its variation was not reasonably necessary for the business of that company or imprudent regard being had in either case to the circumstances at the time and, except where there is a reference to arbitration in accordance with paragraph 2 below, such disclaimer will become effective two months after the other parties to the agreement or lease have been notified of it.

2. It will be provided that any person who is party to the lease or agreement which is subject to a disclaimer may, within two months, refer the matter to arbitration under the Bill, and the tribunal will confirm or revoke the disclaimer. If the disclaimer is confirmed, it will become effective at the date of its confirmation by the tribunal. The tribunal will also have exclusive power to determine any claims resulting from the confirmation of any disclaimer referred to it, with respect to the period before the disclaimer becomes effective.

3. These powers will not apply where the Secretary of State has approved in writing the making or variation of the lease or agreement, whether before or after its making or variation.

Termination of Rights to Acquire Shares or Appoint Directors

4. The Bill will contain provision such that an agreement with a company coming into public ownership will, in so far as it entitles another person to acquire securities in the company or to appoint a director, cease to have effect as from the date of transfer of that company. The agreement will otherwise remain effective so that, if the agreement also provides for the lending of money to the company, such money will remain repayable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

5. Any person who suffers loss by reason of the termination of a right to acquire shares in a company or to appoint a director will be entitled within 12 months of the date of transfer of the company to claim compensation from the revelant Corporation the amount of which will, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration. This right to compensation will not apply where the right in question is conferred by an agreement made on or after the relevant date without the approval in

writing of the Secretary of State. Nor will it apply where the right in question arises from the holding of securities which vest in the relevant Corporation since the general compensation provisions of the Bill will apply in the case of such securities.

Power of Secretary of State to Amend List of Companies to he Taken into Public Ownership

6. The Bill will contain provisions enabling the Secretary of State, up to three months after the date specified as the vesting date, to take steps to acquire the securities of a company not included in List A or List B below as though it had been originally included, if:

(i) the company in question has acquired rights of ownership in or to the user of the whole or a substantial or essential part of a works which, on or after the relevant date, were owned or operated by a company included in List A or List B below or by a subsidiary of such a company; or
(ii) the company in question was, on the relevant date a wholly owned subsidiary of a company included in List A or List B below but had subsequently ceased to be so.

The above provisions will not apply where the Secretary of State has approved in writing, either before or after they have taken place, all the transactions resulting directly or indirectly in the changes outlined above. In addition, any company which has acquired a works in the circumstances outlined in (i) above, will be prohibited from disposing of that works after the Bill receives Royal Assent until three months after the date specified as the vesting date or until any question of the subsequent acquisition of that company has been resolved.

7. As a corollary, the Bill will also contain provisions enabling the Secretary of State, at any time before the date specified as the vesting date, to take steps to prevent any company included in List A or List B below from coming into public ownership if that company has ceased to own or operate the whole or a substantial part of any works owned or operated by it on the relevant date or if one of its subsidiaries has ceased to own or operate the whole or a substantial part of any works owned or operated by that subsidiary on the relevant date.

8. It will be provided that the company in question may, within one month, challenge the Secretary of State's intention on the grounds that the conditions in paragraph 6 or 7 above are not fulfilled. Where agreement is not reached between the Secretary of State and the company, the matter will be resolved by arbitration under the Bill.

The Corporations' Power to Reclaim Rights

9. The Bill will contain provisions enabling the Secretary of State, up to three months after the date of transfer of a company, where he considers that it is in the public interest, to take steps to cause the transfer into public ownership of any rights of ownership in or rights in respect of the user of any works, or any invention or design whether or not subject to statutory protection which the company may have transferred or granted to any person after


the relevant date and before the date of transfer of the company.

10. It will be provided that any person whose rights are sought to be acquired under paragraph 9 above may, within one month, challenge the Secretary of State's decision. Where no agreement is reached, the question will be settled by arbitration under the Bill. The date of transfer of the rights and the compensation therefore will be agreed between the relevant Corporation and the transferor or, failing that, will be determined by arbitration. The date of transfer of the rights will in any event not be earlier than the date specified as the vesting date.

11. These provisions will not apply where the Secretary of State has given approval in writing to the transfer or grant by the company of the rights in question, either before or after it takes place, although such approval may include conditions, including conditions empowering the relevant Corporation to reclaim the rights.

Limitation of Interest or Dividend Payments Made by Companies

12. The Bill will contain provisions defining the permitted level of interest payable after the relevant date in respect of the last complete financial year before the relevant date or any subsequent period on debenture or other loans by a company coming into public ownership in respect of any period before the date of transfer as the minimum necessary for the company to meet its obligations. No payments above the permitted levels will be allowed without the prior written approval of the Secretary of State.

13. The Bill will also provide that no dividend will be allowed to be paid after the relevant date by a company coming into public ownership in respect of any period earlier than the most recent completed financial year of the company before the relevant date.

14. Subject to paragraph 13 above the Bill will contain provisions limiting amount of dividend which may be paid in respect of any period before the date of transfer (hereinafter referred to as a "relevant financial year") to the smaller of the following two amounts:—

(a) the net revenue of the company for the relevant financial year as certified by the company auditor,
and
(b) the total amount of dividends paid before 29th October 1974 in respect of the most recent completed financial year of the company in respect of which a final dividend was paid before the relevant date (hereinafter referred to as "the basis financial year) as adjusted in accordance with the rules set out in subparagraph (5) below or, if no final dividend has ever been paid, such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.

For this purpose—

(1) An amount shall be deemed to have been duly certified by a Company's auditor as the amount of the net revenue of the Company for any period, if the auditor has stated in writing that that amount gives a

true and fair view of the net revenue for the company for the period,

(2) Any payment to members in their capacity as members out of net revenue shall be treated as a payment of dividend,

(3) Any payment of dividend made before 6th April 1973 shall be brought into account as the gross amount thereof, that is to say, the gross amount thereof before deduction of income tax and any such payment expressed to be made free of tax will be treated as a net amount paid after deduction of tax and will be grossed up accordingly,

(4) any payment of dividend made after 5th April 1973 shall be brought into account as a franked payment, that is to say, the amount brought into, account shall be the dividend when aggregated with such proportion thereof as corresponds to the rate of advance corporation tax in force at the date of payment of the dividend and

(5) the total amount of the dividends paid by a company in respect of the basis financial year shall be adjusted in proportion to—

(a) the amount by which the issued share capital of the company at the end of the relevant financial year exceeds, or is less than, its issued share capital at the end of the basis financial year, and
(b) any difference in the length of the relevant financial year as compared with the length of the basis financial year.

A Company's share capital at the end of the relevant financial year shall be computed by taking its share capital at the end of the basis financial year and adjusting it—

(i) by adding the amount or the value of any consideration actually received in the period between the end of the basis financial year and the end of the relevant financial year for the issue of share capital or on the payment up of issued share capital, and
(ii) by deducting the amount or value of any money or other assets paid or transferred by the company during the said period for the payment or redemption of any share capital,

and the amount of the company's share capital at the end of the basis financial year shall he what was then the amount of the company's paid-up share capital and of any share premium account or any other comparable account by whatever name called.

15. To the rules in paragraph 14 above there are to be the following quantifications:—

(i) The rules will not apply to any payment of dividend made with the prior approval in writing of the Secretary of State or made in pursuance of an authority or recommendation contained in a resolution of the directors of the company passed on or before the relevant date, and
(ii) Dividend paid in respect of any period may, where the figure at paragraph 14(a) exceeds the figure at 14(b) to the extent of that excess include dividend on cumulative preference shares in respect of an earlier period.

16. The Bill will contain provisions such that where a Company coming into public ownership makes payment without the prior written approval of the Secretary of State, which is not allowed by the rules stated in paragraphs 13 to 15 above, following a resolution of the directors passed after the relevant date and before the date of transfer, the directors party to that resolution will be made personally liable to the relevant Corporation for the amount of the payments so disallowed. Any claim by the Corporation against a company must be made within twelve months of the date of transfer and, if not settled by agreement, will be settled by arbitration under the Bill, and the tribunal will make such orders against the directors of the company in respect of their liability as it thinks fit.

Power of the Corporations to seek Compensation for Financial Losses

17. The bill will contain provisions such that, where after the relevant date and before the date of its transfer a company coming into public ownership has without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State—

(a) made any payments to its members for the purpose of reducing the share capital of the company otherwise than by the redemption of any redeemable securities;
(b) redeemed any securities which the company was not under any obligation to redeem before the date of transfer or made payments in respect of the redemption of any securities which exceed the minimum payments required to satisfy the rights existing on the said day of the holders of those securities
(c) made any other payment to the holders of its securities (in their capacity as such) out of capital moneys, or distributed assets other than money to the holders of its securities (in their capacity as such);
(d) made to the holders of any of its securities any payment by way of special dividend thereon;
(e) entered into any transaction the effect of which is that property or rights of the company are transferred or granted to any person, and the consideration for such transfer or grant is received by the holders of securities of the company or any of them (in their capacity as such); or
(f) being the subsidiary of another company, effected (without consideration) a transfer to that other company or a subsidiary thereof of rights of ownership in any works;
the relevant Corporation may, within 12 months of the date of transfer of the company, make application to the Arbitration Tribunal in respect of any such transaction to determine the extent of the net loss resulting to the Corporation from the transaction. The Tribunal may make such orders against the persons responsible for the transaction or benefiting from it, including the directors of the company, for payment by them to the Corporation of sums sufficient to enable the net loss to be made good.

18. The approval given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 17 above may be given subject to conditions which may include the reduction of compensation for

securities transferred to the relevant Corporation and the reduction of the total amount of dividends which may be paid in accordance with the provisions set out in paragraph 13 to 15 above.

19. Similarly, provision will be included such that, where after the relevant date and before the date of its transfer, a company coming into public ownership has, without the approval in writing of the Secretary of State—

(a) made any payment to any person without consideration or for an inadequate consideration;
(b) sold or disposed of any of its property or rights without consideration or for an inadequate consideration;
(c) acquired any property or rights for an excessive consideration;
(d) entered into or varied any agreement so as to require an excessive consideration to be paid or given by the company; or
(e) entered into any other transaction of such an onerous nature as to cause a loss to or impose a liability on the company substantially exceeding any benefit accruing to the company;
and the transaction in question was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the company or was imprudent the relevant Corporation may, within 12 months of the date of transfer of that company, make application to the Arbitration Tribunal in respect of any such transaction to determine the extent of the net loss resulting to the Corporation from the transaction. The Tribunal may make such orders against the directors of the company and the persons who were parties to the transaction, having regard to the extent to which those persons were respectively responsible for the transaction or benefiting from it, for the payment by them to the Corporation of sums sufficient to enable the net loss to be made good.

LIST A

Appledore Shipbuilders Limited.
Austin &amp; Pickersgill Ltd.
Brooke Marine Limited.
Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Limited.
Clelands Shipbuilding Company Ltd.
Drypool Group Limited.
Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Limited.
Govan Shipbuilders Limited.
Hall Russell and Company Ltd.
Lithgows Limited.
Robb Caledon Shipbuilders Limited.
Scott and Sons (Bowling) Limited.
Scotts' Shipbuilding Company Limited.
Smith's Dock Company Ltd.
Sunderland Shipbuilders Limited.
Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Limited.
The Goole Shipbuilding &amp; Repairing Co. Ltd.
Vickers Shipbuilding Group Limited.
Vosper Thornycroft Limited.
Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited.
Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
J. B. Howie Ltd.
North East Coast Shiprepairers Ltd.
R. &amp; H. Green and Silley Weir Ltd.
Scott Lithgow Drydocks Limited.
Swan Hunter Shiprepairers Tyne Limited.


The Humber Graving Dock and Engineering Company Ltd.
The London Graving Dock Company Ltd.
The Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company Ltd.
Western Shiprepairers Limited.
Barclay, Curle and Company Limited.
George Clark and NEM Limited.
Hawthorn Leslie (Engineers) Ltd.
John G. Kincaid and Company Limited.
Scotts' Engineering Company Limited.
Swan Hunter Training and Safety Company Limited.
The Scott Lithgow Training Centre Limited.
Yarrow (Training) Limited.

LIST B

British Aircraft Corporation Limited.
Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited.
Hawker Siddeley Dynamics Limited.
Scottish Aviation Limited.

GLASGOW REFUSE DISPOSAL (DRIVERS' DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the health hazard in Glasgow.
As a consequence of an unofficial strike by the drivers of refuse vehicles in Glasgow, there is estimated to be about 60,000 tons of uncollected refuse throughout the city. Some of it is in dumps, but much of it is in streets and back courts. There is already a health hazard, and if no action is taken this will reach very serious proportions with the daily increase in rubbish and the advent of warmer weather.
Last Friday the men rejected a bonus scheme related to the clearance of the rubbish which had been worked out between the corporation and the representatives of the men. On Saturday the corporation decided at a special meeting to confirm its request for Government assistance and I announced that the Government had acceded to the corporation's request.
Action is now being taken to bring in Army units to remove the hazard to the health of the people of Glasgow. It will take a little time to bring into the city the plant and equipment required, but I suspect that the troops from elsewhere in the United Kingdom as well as from Scotland will begin to move the rubbish on Wednesday. Thereafter there will be a rapid build up in their numbers to be completed by the end of the week.
I still hope that even now the men will decide to go back to work so that the corporation can do the job which is properly its own. If the men go back to work, the troops will be withdrawn. Indeed, it is still possible that the use of troops could be avoided altogether.
I deplore the circumstances which have left the Government with no choice but to take this disagreeable step, at the request of the corporation. But our first priority must be the health of the people of Glasgow.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I echo what was said by the Secretary of State in deploring the circumstances which make the statement necessary. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is no longer dithering, as he was on Friday, and is at last taking some action. Why cannot this clearing-up work start until Wednesday? Given the health hazard, which the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged today, and the fact that the situation has been building up over the last nine weeks, were the right hon. Gentleman's contingency plans in such a state of unpreparedness that the plant and equipment were not immediately available? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over the past year the people of Glasgow have been subjected to dispute after dispute and inconvenience after inconvenience? Is it not time that he and his right hon. Friends took a hard look at their social contract and the consequence that it is having for the people of Glasgow?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that there has been any dithering on the part of the Government. He must know that last Friday there was an important meeting. I trust that he, with the rest of the House, hoped that the result of that meeting would be that the men would go back to work. To take any action in advance would have been a matter of provocation and would not have been helpful. I must make the same comments about the other remarks made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McElhone: As a result of a meeting that I had with the strikers and the union officials on Saturday, it was clear that the excellent bonus scheme worked out with the help of the Minster of State could not operate because nearly half the 600 drivers on strike work for the education and lighting departments and could


not, therefore, have benefited from the extra money for clearing the refuse.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the wide discrepancies between statements made by Glasgow Corporation and the trade union involved, there is an urgent need for an inquiry? I think that an inquiry would help the trade union to advise the men to go back to work and prevent what we all deplore —but find necessary because of the health of the citizens—amely, the Army coming into Glasgow.

Mr. Ross: It is not for me to say whether there is a need for an inquiry or the nature of it. My main concern is the health of the people of Glasgow. With every day that passes, more rubbish is piling up, the hazard is getting greater, and the longer it will take to clear up.
I understand that Mr. Kitson, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, has this morning asked for an inquiry by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. How it responds to that request is entirely for the ACAS.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that all of us accept that he had little alternative but to bring in the troops to prevent this health hazard? As the employer is the Labour-controlled Glasgow Corporation, may I ask whether he is satisfied with labour relations in the city?

Mr. Ross: The corporation may be Labour-controlled, but we are talking about the whole corporation, which, by a vote of 84 to 10, decided at a special meeting to bring in the troops. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that labour relations are not merely for the corporation but for all concerned. It is certainly much easier for us sitting on these benches than for those who have to deal with the problem on the ground.

Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while we recognise the enormous pressures that both he and the Glasgow Corporation have been under regarding this strike, all of us must regret that the authority has felt it necessary to take this action? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be pressurised into neglecting any opportunity to dither, to use the word of the

hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), but what I should describe as intelligent delay, if there is any hope of either an inquiry or a successful result. There are complications in this matter. Not all the drivers would have been affected by the bonus scheme. Some of the men are contract drivers. There is perhaps an avenue for success, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that in an extremely difficult situation.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right to express the regret of all of us that we have come to this situation. I hope that he will appreciate the onus on the Government regarding the health hazard in a heavily populated city, particularly those parts, mainly working class areas, where the back courts are piled up with rubbish. I was in Glasgow for practically the whole of Saturday. I assure my hon. Friend that the Lord Provost promised that every effort that could be made, within the limitations of the position, would be made by the corporation to ensure that there was a settlement.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his decision, belated as it is, will be welcomed by those in Glasgow who are living in intolerable conditions because of the strike? Did the military advise him that it was not possible to start work until Wednesday or was there some other reason? Does he agree that this is only one of a series of strikes, the latest of which is marooning a number of elderly people at the tops of multistorey flats because of a strike by electricians? As this is the tenth of a series of strikes in 18 months, is there not a case for having an inquiry into labour relations in Glasgow to see what is going wrong?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that many of the strikes are not purely Glasgow strikes. That is the answer to the last part of his supplementary question.
Regarding the question whether there was delay in bringing in equipment and so on, I should inform the hon. Member that the problem is not men but equipment. There is very little of the necessary equipment in Scotland. It has to be brought from different parts of the country. That was the factor which determined when the rubbish would begin to


be moved. However, that did not stop the preparations for the management of the operation. They began almost as soon as I acceded to the request made to me by Glasgow Corporation. There has been no hold up.

Mr. Monro: Does the Secretary of State accept that many people in Glasgow think that he has been astonishingly complacent over the last nine weeks and that his failure until last week to send a Minister there was a serious mistake? Why is it that in last week's ministerial statement there was no mention of a health hazard, yet it has suddenly become serious? Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when our Service men are off duty they will have good quarters in which to live?

Mr. Ross: The last matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman is for the Army to deal with, and I am sure that it will be able to make satisfactory arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman talked about complacency. He must know how difficult and provocative it can be to intervene at the wrong time. I was concerned that there should be a last opportunity to get the men to face their responsibilities and change their minds. That was done during last week, and their meeting was held on Friday. Glasgow Corporation was seized of the importance and gravity of the situation, and, uniquely, it called a

special meeting on Saturday afternoon. I fancy that the hon. Gentleman was several hundred miles away from Glasgow at the weekend. My guess is that such was his concern about the situation that on Saturday afternoon he was at Twickenham rather than in Glasgow.

Mr. Prior: As we have constantly been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the cause of all industrial strikes has been the Industrial Relations Act and the statutory incomes policy of the Conservative Government, may I ask to what he attributes this latest strike?

Mr. Ross: It is not my task to attribute anything to anything. I do not think that that would be helpful. My task is to try to deal with the health hazard to Glasgow. The right hon. Genleman should disabuse himself of any thought that the efforts of the Conservative Government over industrial relations have been anything other than a handicap to us in trying to build up decent industrial relations in this country.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That this House do meet on Thursday 27th March at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th March, do adjourn till Monday 7th April.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall merely move the motion now and reply later to any points that are made during the debate.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I start by congratulating the Leader of the House on having decided to hold this debate so far in advance of the Easter Recess. I hope that I shall be proved right, but I am basing my congratulations on the belief that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this motion today so that on Thursday when he announces the business of the House for next week he will be in a position to announce business concerned with the contents of this debate and he will be able, therefore, to design next week's business around this debate and on subjects which hon. Members are convinced matter, rather than on subjects which are of less relevance but with which the Government might be concerned.
I propose to deal with eggs and egg production. For much of last year United Kingdom egg producer prices were—as indeed they still are—below production costs. It may be said that the reason for that is over-production, and indeed it would be unrealistic to say otherwise. There is a problem of over-production of eggs.
The situation which faces this country and egg producers reflects the efficiency of the egg-producing industry, and I shall illustrate that. The recently published December agricultural returns showed that the egg laying flock was down by 5 per cent., and yet in January of this year packing station throughput was up by 6 per cent. I think the right hon. Gentleman might agree with me that if productivity had improved in other spheres as much as it has improved in the egg producing industry the country would not be in the mess and muddle in which it finds itself today.
Perhaps more important and relevant to what I am saying is the question of imports, because these are undoubtedly

having an adverse effect on the egg producer. Although imports in January 1975 were down by 40 per cent. compared with 1974 their price this year is 30 per cent. below what it was in 1974. The effect of these imports has been to undermine still further the United Kingdom producers' price.
What, therefore, one has to ask, are the Government doing about the situation? The question can be answered in one word—nothing. And it is nothing in spite of the fact that the Government are not powerless. They have the opportunity to take action under EEC regulations in respect of imports from the EEC.
Producer organisations have passed to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reports and examples of irregularities concerned with EEC egg marketing regulations amongst eggs arriving from other EEC countries. The consequence of the alleged breach of these regulations is that consumers are sometimes intentionally and sometimes unwittingly sold imported eggs which they buy in the belief that they are home-produced eggs.
In addition to irregularities about the labelling of these eggs, there are allegations about stale eggs being brought in from France. There are also allegations about dumping and unfair competition. All these allegations can be dealt with perfectly well under EEC regulations, and yet the Government are taking no action.
One wonders, in passing, to what extent the Ministry of Agriculture has been consulting the Department for Prices and Consumer Protection about this matter, because I cannot believe that the latter Department can be happy about the allegations that are being made about stale eggs.
The situation for egg producers is very serious, and for many producers it will become disastrous, if it has not already done so. Again this emphasises the necessity of the Government's taking action in the very near future.
There are dangers not only for the producer but for the consumer, and these dangers for the future supply of eggs are growing. The Leader of the House may recall that on 6th March there was a mass meeting at Central Hall, Westminster, attended by a large number of small egg producers. On that occasion the


situation was spelled out in considerable detail and although, unfortunately, for reasons best known to themselves, some Labour Members were unprepared to stay and listen to the whole meeting, they must have heard enough to realise the risks that were being taken.
Since that meeting, the producer price has improved. One might conclude that the danger had passed, but I do not think it has. The producer price has improved marginally because the packing station throughput of eggs is down. The reason is simple—that a large number of producers have culled their flocks very heavily. If that trend continued, it could create the likelihood, if not certainty, of a shortage of home-produced eggs and of much higher prices again.
Because of the increased price at the moment, the gap between our prices and prices in France is widening, so the French exporter has greater incentive to export to this country. But it is no use the Government pretending that this is an easy way out and that the import of relatively cheap French eggs will bring the situation under control. It will not. Whatever the difficulties for egg producers in this country, some of those difficulties face French producers. If the Government study egg production trends, not only in France but throughout the Community, in recent years, they will discover that there have been violent fluctuations both in the supply and in the price of eggs. It must be in the interests of producers and consumers in this country and throughout Europe to try to introduce greater stability.
I therefore hope that, when the Leader of the House announces business on Thursday, he will say that within the following few days the Minister of Agriculture will tell us not why he has done nothing so far but what he intends to do so that we may comment on his plans, hopefully to the greater advantage of the egg producer and the egg consumer.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should like to ask the Leader of the House one or two questions about the facilities and amenities of the House. It is exceptionally difficult to conduct business properly because of the gross misconduct of a small number of men whose behaviour must be obviated by the

House, and very quickly. None of us has any copies of Hansard to help with Standing Committee work. I have here the only copy in the House, so I understand, of the Official Report of the Standing Committee last week on the Lotteries Bill, which we are to try to debate further tomorrow and Thursday. It will be impossible to conduct those debates properly because many involved points concern what happened last week.
This situation applies to all Standing Committees and arises from the gross dereliction of behaviour by a small number of men. I do not refer to those who are involved in unofficial or strike action in relation to this House. It appears that a few drivers of their own volition refuse to drive the vans of Her Majesty's Stationery Office which bring here the documents and parliamentary papers which we require for our work.
I do not intend to allow the House to be debased in this manner. I give notice that, with a lorry, I shall come in myself with the requisite papers for all my hon. Friends on both sides of the House to enable us to conduct our business. If any of these men who behave in this disgraceful fashion seek to stop me, they will be very surprised at the opposition they get, although I may be a war-disabled 90 per cent. pensioner.
It is a shocking state of affairs that a few of these bombastic bullies can interfere with the processes of work in Parliament and outside and that exactly the same situation should obtain in Glasgow. Apparently, in that city, a number of men can withdraw their labour and place in jeopardy the health of all the people in Glasgow and Scotland. Now this House cannot conduct its business because a few people who show absolutely no concern for others want to stop driving in here.
Taxi drivers have been coming in, but I hear that a number of people are not prepared to deliver the post. I am told that Tom Jackson has made it plain to the Union of Post Office Workers that the matter has nothing to do with them, so I fail to understand why those men do not bring in what they should.
The Government are showing a namby-pamby attitude. They do not stand up for anyone or anything—and nor does this House these days. I am reaching the end of my tether about the way in


which these people are carrying on. If I do not receive a satisfactory statement today that we shall have all the papers we need for all the Standing Committees and so on, we shall see that they are brought in by Members of Parliament. We shall have to go to a great deal of trouble, but I do not intend that the House should be brought into disorder and rendered unable to conduct its business properly by the misbehaviour of a small group who call themselves trade unionists but who abuse the essence of everything that that movement stands for.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I commend what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davis) has said about the serious situation facing the House. There are three other matters which I hope that the Leader of the House can resolve before we agree to the Easter Recess.
The first arises from the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland today that he has agreed to troops going into Glasgow to help to clear the rubbish. We in Glasgow have suffered from a series of strikes in the public services by sewerage workers, maintenance electricians, engineers and others. As we speak today, a number of my constituents and others in Glasgow, elderly people at the top of multi-storey blocks of flats, cannot go up or down because the lifts are not working. One lift in a multi-storey block called Waddell Court in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), where many disabled and elderly people live, has not been working for a week and there is no sign of a settlement.
It is easy to say that labour relations are bad and that something should be done. but we appear to have a special problem in Glasgow and there is a strong case for an inquiry into what is going wrong with its public services. Having spent my life in industrial relations, I appreciate that faults can arise from lack of consultation and communication and that there can also be straight trouble makers, but there is a case, in fairness to the people of Glasgow, for an independent inquiry.
My second question relates to the cost of the Government's nationalisation schemes. I was shocked to hear the Sec-

retary of State for Industry say today that he intended to nationalise not just shipbuilding, ship repairing and the aircraft industry but much more than we had ever thought in our worst moments. He is, for example, to nationalise Scottish Aviation, a very successful and profitable firm, which certainly does not want to be nationalised and which will benefit in no way from it.
It is appalling that the Government appear to have a great deal of money to spend on these unnecessary things, for example, nationalising a successful and profitable firm. I see that the junior Minister responsible for education in Scotland, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), has just entered the Chamber. I am glad about that because I want to put this matter to him also. He is one of those unfortunate people who, probably not because of himself but because of the Government's financial problems, has found—we were all shocked to hear it—that this year in Scotland we shall be able to afford only £39 million for new building starts in education. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must know what our educational buildings are like in Scotland. There is a need for a new programme. Last year the value of new starts was £69 million.
The reason that has been given is that this drop in expenditure has occurred not because the Secretary of State has found difficulty in arguing the case in the Cabinet but simply because there is not enough money to go around. How can the Under-Secretary remain in his seat and not jump up in a very agitated fashion when he hears the Secretary of State for Industry saying that he will spend untold sums in nationalizing industries—which will not help anyway, as we have seen from those firms which have already been nationalised in the shipbuilding industry.
Before agreeing to the motion we should have a clear statement from the Government as to precisely how much they are to spend on this silly and wasteful scheme of nationalisation, particularly as they have announced their intention to nationalise Scottish Aviation, which will do great harm and in the long run—because of the rationalisation schemes which always come with nationalisation—will put many jobs at risk.
Thirdly, before we agree to the motion 1 hope that the Government will say precisely what attempts are being made to discuss with the EEC the kind of alternative arrangements which might be agreed to by the EEC in the event of Britain deciding to leave the Common Market. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has spoken of some of the problems of the egg producers. He has said that possibly there would be a way in which the problem which has been created by the importation of French eggs could be resolved satisfactorily through Common Market machinery. He is an expert in this matter. I am not. But all of us—whether we are egg producers, manufacturers of soap powder, farmers or consumers—will have many problems if we stay in the Common Market. Many people are saying "We do not like the Common Market. It will make a lot of trouble for many people. It will undermine living standards and cause much difficulty. But, on the other hand we do not want to be left isolated, abandoned and alone in the world". Many people believe that that is the situation which could arise.
I could give my point of view now, as could my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, but I am afraid that people would not be the wiser because we are not speaking on the basis of full information. I do not know to what arrangement the Common Market countries would agree were we to leave the Common Market. Would they look at associate status? Would they apply, at worst, the common external tariff? What would be the situation of our market for foodstuffs, which the Common Market is desperate to obtain because the Common Market wants to sell lots of food to us because it is advantageous?
In the great debate which is to come it would be helpful if the Government could have a quiet word with the countries of the Common Market to see what would be the likely outcome if Britain were to withdraw. I have been very disturbed to hear that it is not a question for us. I think that people have underestimated the loss of sovereignty. It is not enough to pass a Bill saying, "We are chucking all this Common Market business." Far from it. It seems that we would have to start a lengthy process of negotiating our way out of this com-

plicated procedure, taking a great deal of time and trouble.
Therefore, before we adjourn for the Easter Recess I hope that the Government will be able to give us as clear a picture as possible about the likely alternative procedures which would be available to us in trade, in nationality, in commerce and so on, if we adopted the course of action which I believe some members of the Government will be recommending and which some of us on the back benches, of both major parties, will also be recommending.
I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will agree to what is, I believe, a reasonable request. That is that before the Easter Recess we should have, first, an inquiry into the Glasgow labour disputes; second, an estimate of the cost of the nationalisation which has been announced and third, a full explanation of the alternatives which might be adopted if we left the Common Market.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I wish to raise only two points out of about 1,001 which the Government ought to resolve before the House adjourns at Easter. The first relates to the glasshouse industry. The second relates to the egg industry. The matter of eggs was very ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison).
I wonder whether the Government are aware of the critical situation affecting horticultural growers who have large acreages of glass houses. I should like to underline and illustrate this situation by one simple set of figures from a glasshouse grower in my constituency. In 1973 the cost of his oil was £8,336. In 1974 it was £10,747. In this current year £17,475 is his estimate of what he will have to pay to heat his glasshouses.
If one accepts those figures as correct, as I certainly do, this means that in 1975 he will face a 129 per cent. increase in his fuel bill, without the oil rebate that he received last year. In addition there are labour costs and the general costs of inflation in this country.
To illustrate this problem further, it will need an increase of at least 11p per pound on the cost of this grower's tomatoes in order to break even. I very much doubt that this will take place.
However, the Lord President will accept that the horticulture industry in Scotland probably uses a larger amount of oil than the industry elsewhere in the country because of the marginally colder climate. For this reason the growers in the Lanarkshire area and down into Dumfriesshire are feeling the effects of the withdrawal of subsidies very seriously indeed. As the Lord President will also know, the EEC has approved subsidies to horticulture. I want to know before Easter why the Government have withdrawn their help and have not given any indication that they intend to bring in subsidies in the immediate future.
The Dutch horticulture industry is receiving help towards the costs of oil. It is up to the Lord President to ask the Minister of Agriculture—we have not seen much of him in recent weeks—to explain how horticulturists are to survive over the coming year in a particularly competitive industry. We must have an answer before Easter because this industry is in a desperate plight.
Second, I want to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said about eggs, both on price and on the size of the importation from France. My hon. Friend explained to the Lord President just how critical the situation is. It is not so much the quantity of the importation as the value of it. This is having a most disastrous effect on the price of eggs to the British consumer. Feed, labour and transport costs have soared. At the end of the day, as with the muddle over beef that the Minister provided last autumn, the housewife is the person who will pay in the long run—although at the extreme cost of many egg producers going out of business in the next few months.
As the Lord President will be aware, there was recently a particularly impressive lobby of egg farmers to the House, supported and led by the National Farmers' Unions of England and of Scotland. This brought home to hon. Members on both sides of the House the fact that this is a matter not to be taken lightly—which is contrary to the only impression we can obtain at present from the Minister of Agriculture.
Therefore, I ask the Lord President not only to answer on the matter of what the Government intend to do about the

egg industry and about horticulture before Easter but also to ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement to the House about both of these important commodities.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I think I can go along with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in suggesting that it would be appropriate for the Government to announce before we adjourn their contingency plans in the event of Britain withdrawing from the Common Market, which is a course I should like to see followed.
Even if, unhappily, a majority of the Cabinet recommends that Britain should remain in, there is no guarantee that the country will endorse that recommendation in the ensuing referendum. Therefore, whatever the decision of the Cabinet, it is important that we should know what the alternative arrangements are. I do not suppose they need to be outlined in great detail, and perhaps the hon. Member for Cathcart exaggerated slightly the capacity of the Common Market to react out of pique. Our membership of the Market has been of far greater benefit to the other members than it has been to us, if, indeed, it has been of benefit to us at all.
Therefore, even if the other members were minded to react out of pique one would reasonably suppose that self-interest would be a conditioning factor and that the process of extrication, whilst it would present us with a number of difficulties in this House in terms of legislation, would not render us all that vulnerable to retaliatory action by the members from whom we would be disengaged.
My prime purpose in speaking today is to pursue an unpleasant task but one which is incumbent upon me as chairman of the West Midlands group of Labour Members, and that is to raise the question of the continuing hiatus which exists over the representation in this House of Walsall, North. When we were told that a Select Committee was to be set up to enquire into the status of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) it was insisted—certainly I was led to believe by the usual channels—that the Select Committee would be meeting and reporting


very quickly, and that the question of the status of my right hon. Friend and the representation of his neglected constituents would be resolved in a very short time.
Unhappily, that has not proved to be the case. I do not wish to criticise the Select Committee. I have no doubt that it is setting about its unpleasant but important task with great care. Of course it was of prime constitutional importance that it should do so and that a difficult and possibly constitutionally dangerous situation should not be skimped in any way. However, the fact remains that there is growing concern and impatience over the situation that has arisen.
Perhaps I may remind the House of what would happen if no action were to be taken over the question of representation for that constituency. Several thousand people could well remain disfranchised for all practical purposes until October 1979 if this Parliament should pursue its full course. Admittedly, that does not happen often, but there have been Parliaments in recent years that have gone almost that length of time. The 1959 Parliament went up to its legal limit, and, although I do not suppose many people expect this Parliament to go that length of time, there were two General Elections within a very short period and it is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that, whatever the fortunes or difficulties of the Government, this Parliament is likely to last for a considerable time yet.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has told the world repeatedly that he has no intention of returning to pursue his duties. Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks by saying, in accordance with custom, that I have notified my right hon. Friend that I would be referring to him in disadvantageous terms. However, I am unable to discover him, and I am, therefore, unable to observe that parliamentary courtesy.
My right hon. Friend has told us in spectacular and lurid detail of a number of improprieties he has committed in relation to exit from this country and entry into another country. Suffice it to say that they reveal a prima facie commission of a number of criminal offences in relation to his conduct and that they

can only bring discredit upon him and upon this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member will, of course, be quite out of order if he casts reflections upon another hon. Member in debate in the House.

Mr. Lee: I shall try to navigate those shoals as best I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that when a Member of Parliament has behaved in this way we are entitled to question whether or not he should continue to represent his constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is mistaken. That is not at all his rôle this afternoon. We are discussing the Adjournment motion, and in any case this is not the occasion to discuss the merits or demerits of another right hon. Member.

Mr. Lee: Perhaps I am entitled to ask what the Government's intentions are about the representation of Walsall, North because at the moment, for all practical purposes, the constituency remains unrepresented. This is not brought about through any disability imposed upon a Member—who was elected as recently as 10th October last—as was the case of Captain Ramsay who during the war was detained under defence regulations in Brixton Prison and was therefore physically prevented from representing his constituents in Midlothian and Peebles, although, nevertheless, he used to send Written Questions to the House, and to that extent at least continued to represent his constituents.
I think we are entitled to ask the Lord President when the Select Committee may be expected to report. I give notice that if that Select Committee's report is not forthcoming very soon I shall take it upon my own shoulders to put down a motion demanding the attendance of the right hon. Member concerned or, in the alternative, that he shall be expelled from this House. There was a precedent for that in 1782. As far as I can see from the Journals of the House, an hon. Member was then demanded to attend the House forthwith. The records are scanty, as might one imagine, but that is a kind of precedent which might help to resolve what I think all of us would regard as a completely unsatisfactory and unhappy situation.
Because of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not further enlarge upon the arguments of the case. Perhaps that is a good thing in any event because it is not a pleasant task to have to make this kind of speech, but it is important that the speech should be made. I do not think that these things can be left in the air for much longer because they will only harm us all in one way or another.
I have a different matter to raise and I do not expect an answer on it immediately. I hope that my right hon. Friend will, however, refer it to the Minister concerned. It concerns the growing unemployment in the West Midlands. For a long time my area has been complacently bracketed with the South-East of England as being a buoyant, fully-employed and affluent area. Unhappily, that is no longer the case. It is said that we are more vulnerable because employment in Birmingham and the surrounding areas depends on the one hand on a few very large firms and on the other on the existence of a very large number of small firms. The former are vulnerable when there is a faltering in demand for their products, which is the case in the motor industry. The latter are vulnerable because of the difficulties of obtaining credit, the problems arising from inflation and the pressures of liquidity.
This is not the occasion to enlarge further upon this matter. Labour Members, and possibly hon. Members in other parties, are becoming increasingly worried about the growth of unemployment in and around Birmingham. If we cannot have this debate soon, we shall demand one in the near future because many of us wish to bring to the Minister's attention a situation which has been growing progressively serious.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: It is important that before the House rises for Easter the Minister of Agriculture should issue a statement about the future of agriculture. I understand that a White Paper is in the pipeline, in which case perhaps it might be possible to have a half-day debate on it.
I mention this not because I want to bore the House with agriculture but because the December returns for agricul-

ture show that there has been a drop in production. It is the first time for a long period that the returns have shown fewer cattle and sheep. This is serious and highlights the need for a statement from the Minister that will restore confidence in the industry so that the decline in production can be halted.
The problem is serious for the farmers and even more serious for the consumers. We produce only about 52 per cent. of our needs, and if we allow that figure to drop it will have serious consequences for consumers in this hungry world. It is not possible for us to buy all our requirements from abroad. It is vitally important that we produce more food and that we restore confidence so that British produce appears on the breakfast, lunch and dinner tables.
It is important that this uncertainty should be ended. The balance of payments has suffered enough because of the oil crisis. Why make it worse by a drop in home production of food? This does not seem to make sense. A long-term plan is needed for British agriculture. It is on the stocks and it is important that we debate it.
There is a mood of retrenchment in agriculture. Farmers feel that it would be better to cut their production slightly so that they receive better prices. As a nation we cannot afford this, and yet we cannot blame the farmers for their attitude. The House must realise that agriculture is a long-term business. To produce a bullock takes at least two-and-a-half years. It is not something that we can switch on and off at a touch. We cannot just say "We will now have more cattle, sheep or pigs". It is a question of confidence and planning for the future.
In my constituency this Government and the previous one have, quite rightly, set up plants for the manufacture of milk into cheese and butter. However, having given a grant and set up the factories, there is now not sufficient milk to produce the products we need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has mentioned eggs and horticulture. If we go into the Common Market it must be on a fair basis. The withdrawal of the oil subsidies from the tomato growers and the unfair competition experienced by egg producers should give rise to a statement by the


Minister of Agriculture and a White Paper.
The Minister is a pleasant man but a bad Minister. We only have to look at the record for the past year to see the ups and downs, the steps forward and then the steps backward, and the chopping and changing which have created increasing uncertainty. First, there was the increased subsidy for calves, which was later withdrawn. Then there was a policy of nonintervention, which was later amended and replaced by a form of intervention. The past year has been a disaster Responsibility for this must be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I rise to support some of the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and Devon, West (Mr. Mills). I agree with the hon. Member for Devon, West that there should be a statement and some assurances from the Minister before the House rises for Easter.
We are worried about the market situation for eggs. There has not been a prompt and vigorous Government response to the strong point of view expressed to many hon. Members by the farmers who visited us a few days ago.
I am concerned with the glasshouse sector, which in my constituency employs about 6,000 people. With the cancellation of the oil subsidies not only those jobs are at risk but the whole infrastructure of my constituency is gravely threatened.
I should like to take a constructive line. Later on tonight some of us may have an opportunity to raise this matter. However, because it is not yet clear how the capital structure and support of the industry may be debated later, I should like to offer four suggestions which I hope the Lord President will convey to the Minister of Agriculture. They are ways in which the Government could get themselves and the horticulaural industry out of the present mess.
There is clear evidence of a regresssive aid policy with respect to oil subsidies and subsidies generally in the horticultural industry in the EEC. If that is to

be a feature in the second half of this year, and this must depend on the outcome of any referendum, surely the Government must see the case for continuing this aid temporarily until we move into that period when the whole EEC picture will be clearer.
It is important to show that we are trying to do something to help those in this sector of the industry. In the last full year for which figures are available, £70 million worth of horticultural products included £65 million worth of food products such as tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces. We are talking about a food problem and a possible increase in the cost of imported food. This would mean consequent increase for the housewife. I urge the Government to announce, as a gesture of assistance before Easter, that they will restrict import quotas, from third countries such as Bulgaria and other Eastern European countries, to help the glasshouse sector. Perhaps the Lord President would convey to the Minister of Agriculture the fact that credit facilities could be made easier if the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord President would jointly urge on the Government and the Bank of England the thought that commercial banks should take a lenient view towards those in the glasshouse sector who have credit problems.
I refer now to another broad issue in which I take a particular interest. It will be within the Lord President's knowledge that a week ago last Friday the Under-Secretary of State for Industry made it clear during an Adjournment debate, in response to questions I put to him, that the Government were committed to what he termed the restructuring of the special steel sector of the independent steel industry. I draw the Lord President's attention to this matter for two reasons. The first is that it has taken me exactly a year to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. I needed to have the good luck to come up in the ballot for the Adjournment before I was able to have the problem debated. I suggest that this bodes ill for those industries currently being considered as possible victims of the National Enterprise Board.
I hope that the Lord President will be able to give us an assurance, and not just before Easter, that better ways for


us to discuss these matters can be considered. This situation brings into question the whole basis on which our Select Committee structure operates. As I understand it, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has not had the chance to look at the steel industry for some years now. This is a continuing problem.
On the wider question I have raised, I hope that the Lord President can assure us today that the Government's intention to restructure the special steel industry is one that is likely to be reconsidered or at any rate debated on the Floor of the House. I can assure the Lord President that this situation has already caused grave disquiet in view of the history of the British Steel Corporation, with its plans for rationalisation and inevitable redundancies. This is a matter which particularly in Sheffield—I know this from my own family—has caused grave misgivings. I seek an assurance from the Lord President.
An issue which is both a constituency matter and one affecting a wider sector of our community concerns the problems faced by many pensioners and those on relatively small fixed incomes. I am entitled to suggest that this is a problem we should all understand, irrespective of party. I suggest that we shall all be pensioners, too, and perhaps experience what I am talking about. We shall all, perhaps, have to face the worries faced by many pensioners when they consider how they are to meet increasing rate demands. I ask the Lord President to tell me how I should advise my constituents who write to me and say "How shall I pay my rate demand?" How do they generate the necessary cash flow when we see on the one hand a lowering of investment income tax levels and on the other hand measures being enacted which in so many ways, directly or indirectly, bring about further inflation and rising prices?
This is a section of the community which is not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. It is a section whose main net worth is tied up in their homes. If it is the Government's view that this section of the community should be forced to sell their homes at a time when the market is not exactly propitious, the

Lord President should say so. There is no other way in which these people can generate the cash they need to meet rising costs. These are matters which must be considered with great urgency, not only on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of all people throughout the country. The Lord President has a good opportunity today to set our minds at rest.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I hope that the Lord President will give us an assurance that the House will not adjourn until we have had a statement by the Minister of Agriculture about the fate of a minority. That minority comprises the glasshouses growers. I do not think that the Government yet realise the dreadful state of mind they are now in as a result of what has happened in the past few months. These people are but a minority, a few thousand. It cannot be denied that they will be hundreds fewer before this summer is out unless Government action is taken. Minority though they may be, they are an important part of horticulture.
The Lord President should be aware that horticulture represents 10 per cent. of agriculture. A large part of that 10 per cent. involves glasshouse growing. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has spoken of no fewer than 6,000 of his constituents engaged in the glasshouse industry. I think I can claim slightly more than that in parts of Holland. It is not only employers but employees who are at risk if hundreds of growers are driven out of business. Unfortunately, these people have already planted and so they cannot go back this year. What is certain is that unless something is done the crops will be produced this year at a considerable loss. The growers cannot bear such a loss.
We do not exaggerate when we say that this will mean bankruptcy for many growers unless something is done. I am not enamoured of the idea of subsidies but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will permit some time to be given to discussing what Government action can be taken, if it is not to be subsidy. We understand that COPA has an undertaking from the EEC that subsidies would be in order. We know that our main


competitors, the Dutch, are in receipt of these subsidies until the end of June. It is rumoured that the subsidies may continue beyond that. We also understand that the French have taken unilateral action and gone ahead with aid to their growers regardless of what might be decided in Brussels.
There is apprehension among our growers who cannot understand the Government's attitude. They are driven to the view that the Government must be unaware of how close to bankruptcy so many of them are. The facts are available and can be produced by the NFU and other organisations. These facts will show how costs have risen for the glasshouse grower as a result of the fearful increase in the price of oil. The Minister of Agriculture must know how essential oil is to the grower. We should have an assurance about the fate of the glasshouse growers before the House rises for the recess.
Hon. Members have touched on the question of our possible withdrawal from the EEC. Again, there is apprehension among business men. I fear that it is those who read too seriously the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers who are driven to the view that if this country says "No" a fearful barrier will come down the following day and they will not be able to export to the Continent. I echo the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Is it not possible for someone on behalf of the Government to give us appropriate information about the consequences of our withdrawal? If the country says "No" in June, nothing constitutionally will change the following day.
With the balance of payments situation as it is, and with easier access for continental exporters to this country, it would be very unwise to take any course which prevented that continuing access for their goods. Therefore, there must be a de facto free trade area in any event if we withdraw. This matter is of importance to exporters and business men who are anxious about their future. They must have confidence in their planning. They must know where they will stand in the event of our withdrawal.
I therefore invite the Leader of the House to ensure that time is available

for this matter to be debated and for proper information to be given to us, and, therefore, to the country, about where we would stand if we were to withdraw. I ask him also to confirm, as I believe is the case, that nothing serious would happen to our exporters and business men if we were to withdraw and that there would be a de facto free trade area in any event.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) tempts me and it is the custom briefly to refer to what the previous speaker has said. In my opinion, if the British people say "No" in the referendum, the first thing which will collapse will be the pound. What will happen after that goodness alone knows.
My hon. Friends have highlighted the problems of horticulture. The Government seem singularly unaware of the problems faced by the people in it, and I hope that before the House rises for the Easter Recess the Government will find it in their hearts to say something, if not to do something, which will help these people who work hard and long hours. They have great imagination and they are import savers. By most people's criteria they are useful people, and I hope that the Government will find time to consider them before the House rises for the recess.
I wish to raise a more immediate matter because I am much concerned about the state of the country. We have arrived at the point where the troops must be called out to clear up the mess left as a result of an industrial dispute. Last week we in the House had to face deliberate provocation which Mr. Speaker decided was not a breach of privilege but which many of us feel was clearly and positively aimed at disrupting the work of the House. It was not only Glasgow which was confronted by piles of rubbish.
The attitude of the Leader of the House and of his right hon. Friends is totally complacent in the face of people who seek deliberately to disrupt our way of life and to prevent not only Parliament but decent, hard-working people from going about their business. It is incumbent on the Government to realise that if they do


nothing, then, as Sir Robert Mark said in a speech this morning, others in the country will do something: they will deliberately and steadfastly bring this country to a grinding halt. The Government appear to be fall guys for anybody who cocks a snook at them. They must indicate clearly before the Easter Recess that they are prepared to stand firm in the face of provocation and trouble-making.
I wish to refer to another situation which is developing along serious lines due to the Government's policy; namely, the situation in the National Health Service. In my constituency numbers of doctors have stated that if they do not receive satisfaction from the Secretary of State for Social Services by 1st April in the form of a statement, for which they have asked, and thereafter in the form of a commitment by 14th April, they will withdraw from their contracts with the National Health Service.
The consultants' problems have perhaps tended to obscure the far more widespread disruption of the health service which the general practitioners' problems are creating and will create for the people. The Leader of the House is obliged to insist that the Secretary of State for Social Services should, at the earliest opportunity, and certainly before the recess, make a statement to the House which will allay the fears of the doctors and the millions of our constituents who will be deprived of free medical services in the face of, as they see it, the arrogance and intransigence of the right hon. Lady.
I believe that I am justified in demanding on behalf of my constituents some indication that the Government realise the path down which they are leading the country. In British Aircraft Corporation factories, some workers are occupying the telephone exchanges and preventing people from working. Anarchy is raising its ugly head, and if the Government do not set an example more and more people will take the law into their own hands. I hope that the Leader of the House recognises the problem and will do something about it before the recess.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am opposed to the House rising for the Easter Recess because of the crisis facing the glasshouse industry. I do not

know whether the Leader of the House is truly aware of the tragic situation in which the glasshouse producers find them selves, but if he talks to the Minister of Agriculture he will find that there is a desperate need for help.
I wish to put to the Leader of the House, whom I have always regarded as a very responsive person, a cry from the heart from the producers in Northern Ireland. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision on the oil subsidy for glasshouse owners and to continue it until 30th June. Thereafter, there is a good hope that the EEC will have a digressive subsidy. Therefore, the period for help is limited to only six months. It is not as if all the Common Market countries have abandoned the subsidy for their glasshouse growers. The Common Market countries have the authority to give help until the end of June. Some Governments, particularly those of the Republic of Ireland and Holland, decided, I think rightly, to give, and have been giving, financial assistance since 31st December. The Government of the Republic of Ireland give an oil subsidy of 2p per gallon. All I ask him is that the Northern Ireland glasshouse producers and mushroom growers should also receive assistance. We are in the extraordinary position that the glasshouse growers and mushroom growers, especially in Northern Ireland, face unfair competition from competitors on the doorstep of the United Kingdom. That does not make sense.
That is not the only advantage which the Irish Republic has over horticultural producers in Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic receives other EEC advantages; for instance, monetary compensation amounts of 38p per 12 lb tray of tomatoes for export to Northern Ireland in direct competition with the tomato growers in Northern Ireland. How can the Government hope to feed the people and keep prices down if they are damaging home producers and indirectly aiding producers outside the United Kingdom?
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has arrived. I hope that he will sit beside the Leader of the House and join me in appealing for help for the glasshouse industry. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows the needs of the glasshouse producers,


and I hope that he will speak directly to the Leader of the House.
It is not only financial madness for the Government to turn a deaf ear to this appeal, when they are, rightly, giving grants to glasshouse growers for the erection of glasshouses; it is also economic madness, as it strikes a blow at an important sector of the food-producing community. Glasshouse production in Northern Ireland is worth between £500,000 and £600,000 per year, which represents approximately 3,000 tons of produce. Mushroom production alone is worth £3 million and represents 14 million lbs of produce. There are 3,000 people employed in horticultural and direct trades, and I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has unemployment very much in mind. He should have this grave crisis in mind.
The annual usage of glasshouse and mushroom production is 3 million gallons of oil. From 31st December to 30th June, the period for which help is asked, the usage would be 1½ million gallons at a cost of £60,000 at 4p per gallon. We must remember that the Government have put hundred of millions of pounds into subsidies for food. All I am asking for for the people of Northern Ireland is £60,000 to save the glasshouse producers and the mushroom producers from intolerably heavy financial losses and to prevent some from going out of business.
Many glasshouse producers have already planted and cannot now cut back on their production. Some of them have cut back, but they will not be making a profit at the end of the day. They will be suffering a great loss, but far less than they would have suffered if they had gone ahead with production.
In my constituency of Down, North I have not only the chairman of the horticultural section of the Ulster Farmers' Union; I have the names "Forsythe", which is synonymous with tomatoes in Northern Ireland, and "Monlough" which is synonymous with mushrooms. I appeal to the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to help these people, who are in grave financial difficulties. The only alternative for some of them is to go out of business, and I am sure that the Government would not wish that. I call upon the Government—which asked producers

over the years to increase food production—now to help producers who responded to that appeal by helping them with the continuation of the subsidy on oil for heating glasshouses and for the production of mushrooms.
The milk subsidy—I do not quarrel with it costs £350 million a year. Yet the cost of the oil subsidy for the whole of the United Kingdom would be only £7 million, and the glasshouse producers supply us with food worth £80 million.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to help the glasshouse producers and the mushroom producers in the Province, and I ask him to call upon his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to meet me and the producers of Northern Ireland and to grant the subsidy until 30th June to these people who do such a good job in Northern Ireland.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: In this relatively short debate many of my hon. Friends have been concerned on behalf of a small minority of people, the glasshouse producers. I hope that their voices have not fallen on deaf ears. That is not to say that I think that the Leader of the House will not have listened attentively, but I hope that he will be able to convey a sharp message to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the anxiety of the people about whom my hon. Friend have spoken. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), Arundel (Mr. Marshall), Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kelfedder) have all made forceful pleas for the Government to take remedial action.
I do not want to introduce a note of controversy, but it is fatuous for the Government to withdraw this essential assistance to the industry. That would result in serious damage to the industry and. inevitably, in an increase in our import bills. For this state of affairs to be accompanied by the announcement this afternoon that the knavish man the Secretary of State for Industry has been given the money to take over Scottish Aviation is idiotic, and I echo the complaints made on that subject by my hon. Friend


the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture can be persuaded to pack his bags and go back to Brussels to tell his colleagues there that he will restore the subsidy for the glasshouse growers in the way that it has been restored elsewhere in the Community, and that we cannot do without it. If he does that, the debate will at least have done some good.
We have been waiting too long for a debate on the public expenditure White Paper. I know that we do not want to hear too much from Treasury Ministers. I feel sorry for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in having to preside over endless discussion on endless Finance Bills. We do not want that again, but I think that Treasury Ministers should come to the House to explain their position on the expenditure White Paper.
I also quietly, and in as restrained a manner as I can, remind the Leader of the House that we have been without a White Paper on defence for over a year, which must be almost without precedent. I hope that the Government will put that right as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) spoke about eggs. I am sorry to have to send another message to the Minister of Agriculture, but I hope that it can be dinned into his head and his advisers' heads that merely to say that French eggs represent only 2 per cent. of our imports and that that is not a serious situation is entirely unconvincing to those who are trying to serve a market which is permanently overhung by these imports. More than enough can do a great deal of damage to prices. Those of my constituents who have recently been to see me on this matter have all shown consistent losses of several hundreds of pounds per week. That situation cannot continue.
I hope the Leader of the House will do his best to persuade the Minister of Agriculture that in this situation there must be some temporary control of imports until we can reach some stability for our own producers—otherwise, as in horticulture, we shall be without a home-producing industry of any strength at all.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston on the

subject of the Common Market was a little unrealistic to ask for a member of the Government to come to the House and explain the consequences for this country if we were to withdraw from the Community. I do not wish now to join issue with him on the main subject, but I would point out how difficult it would be for a member of the Government to come to the House and explain the position. We should have to hear at least two members of the Government because they would have to explain the two views that prevail in Government. I think that might be too much. It would not advance us any further and I would respectfully counsel my hon. Friend against advocating that course.

Mr. Body: But would my right hon. Friend disagree with what I suggested as the outcome?

Mr. Peyton: I said that I would not go into the substance of the argument. I said that to have two Ministers to explain completely opposing views to the House would not shed any light on our counsels. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me on that point, if on nothing else.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). Again the Minister of Agriculture was the target of his comments. I am somewhat sorry at that because we know that the right hon. Gentleman tries very hard. I, too, hope that the White Paper setting out long-term agricultural policy will make its appearance without too much delay. We believe that over the last year or so the farmers have had more than their share of misfortune to put up with, and that something must be done urgently to restore confidence in this important industry.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) raised the question of difficulties facing the House of Commons during the present dispute. I would endorse many, though not all, of his comments—comments echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cathcart and Christchurch and Lymington.
I know very well the time-honoured phrase that one must not say things which will exacerbate feelings, but I feel that can be carried a little too far. I believe that the trouble makers have been having


a field day in our country for too long. They have been pummelling the public without any fear of retribution or even condemnation by public opinion. They are often fawned upon by the media, to which they doubtless represent a fresh piece of news which will last for a day or a week or so. There are too many bullies about and they have been taking it out not of rich, powerful people, who can always manage to get away, but obscure people. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart mentioned the elderly people who were marooned in tall buildings in Glasgow. We must remember that for old people there are great certainties in the present climate of disrespect for the law. They suffer great misery when they feel that they cannot rely on the essential services of life because somebody feels he is entitled to get something more and if he is not given it he will take it. That is a creed which most improperly and tragically has grown up in this country. I hope that nothing the Leader of the House says this afternoon will give countenance to a practice which I believe is loathsome.
I wish to refer to comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, one of those who spoke so eloquently on behalf of the glasshouse growers. My hon. Friend also made a point which should be given particular attention at present when Parliament is in the middle of considering the Industry Bill. We are frequently told by the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for Industry that he will be answerable to Parliament for all activities of the industries which he takes over and for which the National Enterprise Board is responsible. But the nationalised industries occupy a remarkably small fraction of parliamentary time and consideration. Those industries attract a certain amount of Government attention and are regularly pushed around by the Treasury, their investment programme being adjusted up and down at quite short notice. I believe that is a most unsatisfactory situation for an industry to have to face.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the steel industry has not been discussed for a long time in the House and it should be so discussed. Enormous sums of public money are paid out in investment, and indeed the industries were purchased by the taxpayer. But the attention given by the House to the enormous proportion

of the national wealth which is invested in those industries is practically nil. The situation is quite disgraceful. Far too many of these industries are an open drain on national resources, and far to often—and I am not excusing Governments of either political complexion—they are treated as pawns in Government policy, which ought not to happen. I know nothing more improper than to yield to this temptation, for reasons which are quite extraneous to the industry, to modify and change the Government's approach.

Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the event of nationalisation seems to ensure that the industry is shuffled back into a position where this House is unable to discuss neither its problems nor its costs? For example, although today the Post Office has put people in a position where they have to save up to send a letter, that organisation cannot be examined by this House because it is not now a Government Department?

Mr. Peyton: I have had a number of opportunities to observe such matters, but I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) made some comments about his right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). I do not intend to follow him in any detail, except to say, on behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee which is investigating this painful affair, that we are grateful for his assurance that he will not chastise us overmuch.
There are piles of rubbish lying around the corridors of this place. I am not in any way complaining about—[Interruption.] Has the hon. Gentleman got anything to say?

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Nothing worth hearing.

Mr. Peyton: I believe that. The piles of rubbish lying around this place are serious, but not because they are an inconvenience to hon. Members or even to the staff. They are serious—so it seems to me—because they are a gross reflection upon the indignity to which the country's government is now being subjected.
I am not making a party point. I have genuine sympathy with the Leader of the House in dealing with a very difficult problem. However, I believe that those piles of rubbish will serve one useful purpose if they remind us all of that growing contempt which is being shown by troublemakers for the convenience, comfort and health of the community as a whole.

Mr. Lee: What about the consultants?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Handsworth is always noticeable by his interventions. I am not talking about consultants. I am talking about people who knock the community. I am not identifying anyone. The piles of rubbish which are littering the corridors will serve a purpose if they remind the House that it has responsibilities not merely to sympathise with troublemakers, but to protect the community, which is infinitely vulnerable.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: I shall try to reply to all the points which have been raised.
Many hon. Members have talked about agriculture. The hon. Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and Dumfries (Mr. Monro) raised the question of eggs. We are well aware of the present difficulties facing our egg industry and, in particular, the problem of imports from France, which was the main point raised. However, a unilateral embargo on imports without adequate justification would not be in the national interest.
We are not complacent about the situation. We are not doing nothing as the hon. Member for Devizes suggested. Ministers have discussed the situation with representatives of the industry, and the information which they have provided about imports from France is being considered. We want to have further discussions about the longer-term situation. There have been discussions with the French Government, and it is hoped that it will be possible to arrange meetings between representatives of our two industries. Discussions are also being arranged with the French authorities on the problems of the implementation of Community rules on the labelling of eggs. It is hoped that the ban which the French maintain on imports of eggs from this

country can be brought to an early and satisfactory conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Members for Dumfries, Arundel (Mr. Marshall), Holland with Boston (Mr. Body); Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the question of the glasshouse industry. Certainly this is a matter which is troubling us.
The Government reached the decision not to reintroduce the temporary fuel oil subsidy for growers of protected crops after exhaustive deliberation. The future of the subsidy was discussed in an Adjournment debate on 20th December 1974, and the views then expressed were taken fully into account before Ministers took the decision announced on 20th February. The subsidy had run its course throughout 1974 at a cost of £7 million. It had certainly served its purpose in providing a breathing space.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will study what has been said in the debate. I shall refer the matter to him, but I can hold out no hope that the decision will be reversed.
On the basis of information available, the aid we have given for fuel oil compares favourably with that given by other EEC member states. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston said that it was otherwise, but that is the information I have.
The EEC recently agreed significant increases in reference prices for the main glasshouse food products. These should provide adequate protection against third-country imports, because they act effectively as minimum import prices.
I turn to the question of credit facilities for glasshouse growers. The Agricultural Credit Corporation provides facilities for guaranteeing bank loans to growers as well as farmers. I do not believe that creditworthy growers will be unable to get credit.
The hon. Member for Down, North referred to the Government of the Irish Republic. That Government started to give an oil subsidy six months after the start of the subsidy given by the United Kingdom Government. It will amount on average to significantly less per gallon


of oil used than the United Kingdom subsidy.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), as well as the right hon Gentleman, referred to the agricultural industry generally. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made a long statement in the House on 17th February, dealing with the beef regime, common price levels, less favoured areas—including hill farming—and guaranteed price determination. I believe that there has been a tremendous return of confidence in the industry.
My right hon. Friend began discussions last year with representatives of farmers, workers, landowners and the food and drink industries about the longer-term prospects and objectives for agriculture. These discussions have been fruitful, and we certainly hope that a consensus of views can be achieved. My right hon. Friend hopes to make available, probably at an early date after Easter, the Government conclusions from these discussions. The discussions with the industry so far have been mainly concerned with the economic case for higher output of food from our own resources, and with the projections of possible production levels and priorities to the early 1980s. These are important issues, and the industry will wish to consider carefully the Government's conclusions.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, referred to the strike of maintenance workers in the House and other Government buildings. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington said that we were being very complacent and that the strikers were being arrogant. It is interesting to note that when he spoke about the GPs and consultants he put it the other way round: they were acting quite properly, but it was the Minister who was being arrogant.

Mr. Adley: 1 should like to get this straight. I said that the doctors think that the Secretary of State is being arrogant and complacent.

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman would be much more convincing if he would condemn the doctors in the same terms

as those in which he condemns the strikers here.
We are having difficulties, which the right hon. Gentleman recognised, but on the whole the House has kept functioning remarkably well. This is due to the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted the undoubted but minor invconveniences. The heating and lighting are normal. All essential papers have been provided, although sometimes not on time and not in the numbers we should like.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am prepared to sit here in my duffel coat, and I do not mind whether I have anything to eat and drink, but we must have papers ready by tomorrow morning to enable us to do our Standing Committee work. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I have the only copy of the Hansard of the Standing Committee considering the Lotteries Bill, which is due for discussion tomorrow morning? I am advised that there is no other copy. The right hon. Gentleman is apparently not willing to see that the drivers who work for Her Majesty's Stationery Office carry out their responsibilities and bring in the papers that we need. Will he do that, or shall I and my colleagues go to the St. Stephen's Press and collect copies and bring them here? Which is to be? Will the right hon. Gentleman organise it, or shall we?

Mr. Short: At a meeting just before lunch, at which Stationery Office representatives were present, I was told that all the necessary papers for all the Committees would be available.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not seeking to mislead the House, but I had great difficulty this morning because I could not obtain papers for use in the Standing Committee considering the Industry Bill. Not even the amendments were available. We are to meet tomorrow, and there are no papers in the Vote Office. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would take that on board.

Mr. Short: I shall look into it, but I am told that all the papers for that Committee and all the other Committees will be available.
Questions were asked last week about the Sex Discrimination Bill. I said in


reply to business questions that I understood that 40 to 50 copies were available. They were, but, unfortunately, the Vote Office had kept them locked up. As soon as I inquired after the Business Statement they were made available, and now 370 copies of the Bill are available.

Mr. John Farr: I am serving on the Committee considering the Lotteries Bill. Is the Leader of the House satisfied that hon. Members are receiving their mail? I know that representations about what is happening in the Committee have been sent to me through the post, not all of which have yet come to hand. Failure to receive mail will affect the efficiency of hon. Members on both sides of the House in dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Short: I discussed the matter with the Postmaster and the Serjeant at Arms this morning, and I am told that the post, both in and out, is now functioning normally.
The catering is greatly improved, and I think that things generally have improved today, largely due to the willingness of hon. Members on both sides of the House to co-operate.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman will oblige the House if he will thank those members of the staff who have kept essential services going.

Mr. Short: I am pleased to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman says. A great deal of overtime has been put in, and sometimes there has been all-night working here by many people, especially girls, under very difficult circumstances.
My object is to keep the House going at all costs, whatever happens. I hope that it is the determination of us all not to allow this place to be closed down by anybody at any time. That may mean some inconvenience, but we shall try to reduce it to the absolute minimum.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) referred to the stoppage of the lifts in Glasgow. I much regret this inconvenience, especially to old people and disabled people living in high blocks of flats. They have enough problems at any time, without having this further difficulty imposed upon them. However, I understand that the strike has now been made official.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been involved, but has not succeeded in ending the dispute. I believe that industrial action has been stepped up, and we much regret that. The ACAS still stands ready to give every assistance towards resolving the dispute. We shall watch the situation carefully.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about school building in Scotland. He referred to what I think he described as savage cuts in the amount of school building, which local authorities in Scotland can start in 1975–76. While the new programme announced for that year is smaller than the building programme for 1974–75, the amount of school building that can be started by education authorities in the financial year 1975–76 is much greater than the amount of the new programme. That is because of an overlap of three months between tile two programme years.
The hon. Gentleman will recall how it happened. It is because of the moratorium imposed by the previous Government from October to December 1973. That resulted in the 1974–75 programme running three months later than normal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has restored the ground thus lost. As a result, it will be open to education authorities to start in the 1975–76 financial year both the last quarter's work under the 1974–75 programme and the whole of the 1975–76 programme. Therefore, the amount of starts in the year will be much bigger. We shall have caught up the lag left behind by the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman referred to alternatives to the EEC, as did a number of other hon. Members. We are to have an extended debate on the renegotiated terms, and that is the sort of question lie will be able to raise then.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) mentioned the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). I understand the concern of my hon. Friend and his colleagues from the area. I understand that the Select Committee has made its report, and I hope that it will be printed towards the end of this week or the beginning of next week. There are printing difficulties, but I shall do


my best to see that it is printed as quickly as possible.
There was no pressure on the Select Committee to expedite its work. Any kind of pressure would have been improper. Its deliberations concerned a right hon. Member in respect of whom, whatever he may or may not have done, there was at least prima facie evidence of some illness. Therefore, it was right that a Committee of the House should look into all the facts and report to the House. I hope that we shall await the report, and then see where we go from there.

Mr. Lee: Shall we have an opportunity to debate the report before the House rises?

Mr. Short: I am afraid not. I think that it will take us all our time to get the report into the hands of hon. Members before then. I hope that we shall study it carefully and then decide what to do.
My hon. Friend also spoke of unemployment in the Midlands. I understand his great concern very well, because I come from the Northern Region, which has the highest unemployment figure in the country. Unemployment in Britain as a whole is far too high—approaching the 800,000 mark—but it is the lowest in the Western world. Our object is to control inflation without causing high unemployment. We are not complacent. We are watching the situation very carefully, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will bear it in mind.
The hon. Member for Arundel referred to the restructuring of the special steel industry. I cannot reply today, but I shall pass on his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to pensioners. This Government, in the one year they have been in office, have done more for pensioners than any other Government in recent years. Pensioners will be given a further increase in their pension next month, and another towards the end of the year. One of the many things we have done to help them has been to persuade British Rail recently to introduce a cheap travel scheme for pensioners, and, of course, we have intro-

duced an inflation-proof savings scheme for pensioners. It will be a major preoccupation of the Government to protect pensioners, and others who are at risk, against inflation.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil referred to the debate which was promised on the White Paper on Public Expenditure. Although we are coming up to the Budget after Easter, I still hope to arrange it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the White Paper on defence. That will be published, I am pleased to say, on Wednesday of this week; copies will be available in the Library on Wednesday.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about nationalised industries. He said that little attention was paid by the House of Commons to the nationalised industries. I agree. I think that the House pays too little attention to the nationalised industries. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is one of our most successful Committees. It is a very well organised Select Committee. It keeps all the nationalised industries constantly under review.
The right hon. Gentleman wound up by talking about the piles of rubbish in the House. Very few such piles are now left. Almost all the rubbish and kitchen garbage were removed during the weekend. I think that a few small sacks remain. The right hon. Gentleman saw the rubbish as a symbol of the indignity to which Parliament is being subjected. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not making a party point, but I could point to the time, exactly one year ago, when the whole country was subjected to a three-day working week, when this building was lit by Calor gas lamps. That was a major inconvenience and, I should have thought, was a symbol as well. None the less, I do not take this matter lightly. I take it extremely seriously, and I shall do everything that I can to minimise the effect of it on the working of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in my determination to keep Parliament functioning at all costs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 27th March, do adjourn till Monday 7th April.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Miss Boothroyd.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the first subject for debate, I remind the House that we are a little more restricted with these Estimates. Hon. Members may be aware that on the first subject only the reason for the increase—namely, pay awards, increased costs of capital work and running expenses of national centres—may be debated.

Orders of the Day — SPORTS COUNCIL

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to start the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill and to raise under Class VIII of the Supplementary Estimates the increased grant to the Sports Council and the reallocation or revised allocation of resources under Appendix I, page 217. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in the debate.
It is rare that we have the opportunity to debate sport. That is surprising since sport is a great rational pastime, and includes playing or watching sport or even reading sports items in the newspapers. We have had an international weekend. We congratulate the Welsh rugby union team on winning the championship and the winner of the Formula One Grand Prix at Brands Hatch. England won the Calcutta Cup and Scotland won the world cross-country championship. As for Ireland, I can only say that at least today is St. Patrick's Day.
I accept that this debate must be restricted to a narrow front since it is confined to Sports Council activities. We cannot raise other major problems such as horse racing, professional football, or the safety of crowds at sports grounds. There continue to be problems of behaviour and hooliganism, and I should like to know when the Minister expects


the Bill dealing with safety at sports grounds, which was passed by the other place before Christmas, to come before this House.
We should set the extra expenditure in the Estimates in the context of the grants in recent years and give our opinion whether it is sufficient in present circumstances. The Minister needs to disprove my contention that it is insufficient—indeed, that it is shockingly inadequate. I shall seek to show why that is so.
I am delighted that the Minister of State is present to answer this debate. I think that it will be his first speech on sport in the House since he set up his new office in July. It is surprising that this is the first debate on sport when there has always been such a wide interest in the subject. I know that the Minister was previously Chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation and in earlier days was a football referee.
The last Conservative Government appointed the Sports Council under a Royal Charter in 1972. The chairman of the Scottish council is Laurie Liddell, and the chairman in Wales is Colonel Harry Llewellyn, while Sir Roger Bannister has been Chairman of the Sports Council. I should like to pay a warm tribute to Sir Roger Bannister, who is a supreme athlete turned brilliant administrator, for giving a lead and setting a fine example. We warmly congratulate him of his knighthood. We regret his departure from the Sports Council and welcome Sir Robin Brooke as acting chairman. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the future of the chairmanship of the Sports Council. We anxiously wait to know its future, which will be dealt with in the White Paper.
Will the Minister also deal with the House of Lords Report on Sports and Recreation? He made an announcement on 16th July 1974 at the excellent CCPR conference.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): While I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for having raised the subject, I am not sure whether it will be in order for me to deal with it. If it is in order. I shall happily do so. Perhaps I may seek the guidance of the

Chair in view of the ruling given by Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have been asked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say something about the chairmanship of the Sports Council and its future. In view of your ruling at the beginning of the debate, I wonder whether it will he in order for me to do that. I should, of course, be happy to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will not be able to go into questions of policy and, therefore, of personnel. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) began reasonably by congratulating Wales. I hope he will return to that subject.

Mr. Monro: I am pleased with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not expect the Minister to go into the matter in any depth. However, I am a little surprised, when he has at long last appeared as Minister of Sport, at him running for cover or kicking for touch.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad to say that that remark was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. I am not running for cover. I said that I should be happy to discuss the matter, although I understood from private information about how the debate should be conducted, as well as from what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that would not be in order. If, however, it is in order, I shall be happy to deal with it.

Mr. Monro: I should have thought that if the Minister wanted to say something about it, he would have kept quiet until an opportunity arose. If he does not do so, I should think that he was starting on the wrong lines.
The Minister announced on 16th July 1974 at the excellent CCPR conference that he would publish the White Paper in 1974. I am sad that so far we have not had it. On the same day the non Gentleman announced—this is relevent to the Estimates—the £200,000 grant to the north stand at the Crystal Palace which is one of the national centres mentioned in the Estimates. I shall be interested to hear from where the sum is to come. Is it from this year's increase or switching of allocations in Appendix 1, or is it to come out of next year's budget? This should be clarified. The grant for capital expenditure in the Estimate has decreased by £315,000, and I should like to know


where in the Estimate the £200,000 increase for the Crystal Palace comes.
There is no doubt that the major bone of contention in this debate will be that we are short of money for sport. This has culminated in the strong criticism of the situation by the CCPR, the Sports Council and the Press and general public about the miserable increase in expenditure announced at the end of last month. This is why the CCPR has launched its campaign "Fair Play for Sport", willingly backed up by the Press, following on the theme of the Sports Council of "Sport for All".
When we look at this Estimate we must bear in mind that inflation is running at at least 20 per cent. in the current financial year. That fact has been announced on numerous occasions. It may be that it will get up above that, even towards 30 per cent., in the next financial year. The grant which the Minister has announced of an increase of £1·1 million will in no way cover inflation, and certainly it allows nothing for any growth or expansion in sport.
We all appreciate when we look at these Estimates the national and local government restraint on expenditure. But the Government must get their priorities right. The Estimates show an increase of no less than £628 million in the current year, yet the increase for sport is minuscule. Can the Minister think of anything which is of greater value to the nation as a whole than an interest and involvement in snort and recreation? Even today we have heard the Secretary of State announcing expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds on nationalising the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, yet here we are in terms of sport asking for an additional £1 million or £2 million and it is not forthcoming.
Were it possible I should have liked to go into the annual increase in grant for the Sports Council itself. However, I have no wish to upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall refrain from doing that. But we know that, from the low base on which we began, in the first year the increase was 38 per cent. and in the second it was 34 per cent. Now, however, we are down to less than 20 per cent., all in the context of very severe inflation. In recent years we have welcomed the

very big increase in expenditure by local authorities on sport and recreation. Now we face a severe clamp-down on the expenditure by local authorities on this side of their activities. We are being squeezed on both fronts, and that is why this small increase in the current year's Estimate is so disappointing.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not there a moral obligation on the hon. Gentleman to say what the Conservative Government would be spending if he occupied my hon. Friend's position? Time after time this Government are told that their taxes are too high, and the rest of it. What would a Conservative Government be spending?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is a master at intervening before the event. He knows that I can give no commitment about what a Conservative Government would have done. However, in the three years since we set up the Sports Council the trend has been to increase the amount involved. First it was up by 38 per cent. and then by 34 per cent. This year, under the hon. Gentleman's Government, we are back to 20 per cent. The trend was substantially upwards, and I hope that it would have continued that way. During the election campaign I wrote a pamphlet encouraging expenditure on sport. That is what I should like to have seen happen. I am aware that Government supporters may point a finger at me about other expenditures which are referred to frequently by those involved in sport. One of them concerns the rating situation. All sports would like mandatory derating of amateur sports facilities. I advocate sincerely that the Layfield Committee should look at this very carefully.
I hope that the Minister will tell us a little about his thoughts on finance. This Estimate is very disappointing, but it would be extremely sad if the hon. Gentleman thought that sport might be financed in the future by lotteries, gambling levies, sponsorship, advertising, bingo or the sweated labour of many dedicated volunteers. Sport has to have a firm base on which to stand, and that is why we are so critical of the Estimate. Sponsorship is a bonus. It cannot be regarded as the bread and butter of the finance of sport in future years.
The disappointment which is felt about the money going into sport is the reason why the CCPR organised its excellent lobby at the House of Commons some 10 days ago. The representatives of more than 40 sports organisations came to the House to tell hon. Members how disappointed they were. They pressed upon me and others their feelings, and most of their complaints concerned the lack of money going into sport. They also criticised the red tape and the paper work which is building up for their secretaries and committees in relation to applications for grants and the financial complications caused by the Treasury. They feel that they are reaching the point where we may soon break their backs. Many were of the view that spending on sport was far below comparable amounts in other European countries.
This Supplementary Estimate covers, in part, pay awards at the national centres. If he can, I hope that the Minister will go into some detail about them. I wrote to him on 3rd March, and I realise that it may be too early for him to reply in detail. Obviously he will have to consult the Scottish and Welsh Sports Councils and look at the revision of the Pelham scale under the Houghton award.
Can the Minister tell us what has happened about the staff salary review of 1973, which has been with him for a considerable time? Is he yet in a position to say whether the award, which was a restructuring operation as opposed to a Houghton award type of increase, will be back-dated to April 1974? A word of reassurance from him would be very welcome to the staff, the coaches and those PE teachers affected by the award.
I turn next to the increased costs of capital work and the running expenses of the national centres. Can the Minister tell us what this money covers? There was a major improvement started at Bisham Abbey in October. What progress has been made, and what additional facilities will there be? Does the sum involved cover any additional facilities at Lilleshall? This centre, excellent as it is, needs updating. We look forward to hearing that, following recommendations from the Sports Council, the hon. Gentleman is considering additional funds for it. Are the facilities adequate? I believe and hope that they are. Are the facilities

at Holme Pierrepont ready for the world rowing championships in August? Those facilities involve Nottinghamshire County Council.
The House would like to know whether any provision for development is included in the Supplementary Estimates. We shall also be grateful if the Minister can tell us anything about the other two national centres, Brenin and Cowes. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like everyone else, is looking forward to the Olympics. I should like to know whether in the near future, or even in some of the reallocations of the Estimates, provision will be made one day for an indoor athletics centre. We know that we are doing the very best that is possible with the facilities at RAF Cosford, but we should be considering something much more substantial than that. We should have in mind a full indoor running track. Further, if the Minister has something helpful to say about sport for the disabled we shall be pleased to hear it.
The expenditure that we are talking about is not particularly large in terms of the national cake, but certainly the grant for capital expenditure is a substantial part of the allocation of grant-in-aid to the Sports Council. Are we being quick enough to learn from recent lessons? Does the Minister feel that we have something to learn from recent developments such as the Sobell Centre and the geographical siting of such centres? Is it right to place the centres near to under-privileged areas? These are important matters that deserve consideration. It is important that there should be much greater co-ordination than exists at present between the local authorities, the Government, the Sports Council and all the other sports bodies concerning future provision.
It is obviously in the Minister's mind to encourage sports centres. I know that he has been doing a great deal in that direction. However, I must ask him whether it is right to encourage sports centres to be positioned close to major football stadiums so that they can be attached to the charisma of first division football clubs. The expenditure will be immense. How will it be met in terms of the figures that we are now discussing? I know that it is an attractive idea, but we must consider the practical possibilities.
I turn to the great debt that we owe to sport. A tremendous amount of work has been carried out by voluntary effort throughout the country. It is very right that the Minister should make every effort to give encouragement to voluntary bodies by allocating as much finance to them as is possible bearing in mind what is available.
There is tremendous activity in sport. That is apparent by looking at the programme of the Sports Council entitled "Take Part in Sport 1975". That is significant and welcome. We want to see that sort of programme go on from strength to strength. We have a great chance to move forward. I am worried, as are many other hon. Members, that we may lose momentum and slip back because of an insufficient increase in the Estimates.
We have seen incredible inflation in the past few years. As the Minister and all of us are aware, there is an awakening interest in sport in the House. We now seem to run a football team, squash, cricket, sailing, tennis and golf.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I intervene, for the sake of the remainder of the debate, to tell the hon. Gentleman before he sits down that he will never know how tolerant I have been.

Hon. Members: Hear hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope hon. Members will realise that I am limited by the rules of the House. We are now concerned only with the reasons for the increase in the grant-aid—namely, pay awards, the increased cost of capital work and the running expenses of national centres.

Mr. Monro: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that your enjoyable weekend may have mellowed your view of my efforts today.
I conclude by saying that sport is in the best interests of the nation. We must stop taking money away from sport. We must begin to put money into sport and to see that there is fair play for all.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I shall be extremely brief in the few comments that I wish to make. First. I thank the

hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) —he is a near neighbour of mine although the border separates us—for initiating a debate upon an important topic. In my humble opinion, we could do with wider debates and more frequent debates on sport. I offer my personal congratulations to the hon. Gentleman that his head did not roll in the recent reshuffle.
There is one thing that the hon. Gentleman and I have in common, given that we are near neighbours. We are both a little concerned with a football team that plays in my constituency. I hope you will allow me this latitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At one time that team was at the top of the table. That is the one consolation that we have. It is now struggling right at the bottom of the table. I know that the hon. Gentleman will share with me the hope that the team may manage to stay in its place in the first division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is the end of the latitude.

Mr. Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has responsibility for sport and recreation. I do not think that there is anyone in the House who has done more for sport over the years than my hon. Friend. I am sure that we could all do a lot more if the money were available. The problem that my hon. Friend is up against and the problem that we all face is the problem of cash. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making available the small amount that we are now discussing.
The hon. Member for Dumfries has been a little inconsistent. Among others he is always pleading for more money for sport. On the other hand, he is often saying that Government expenditure must be ruthlessly cut. He claims that a Conservative Government would cut Government expenditure. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. One of the inconsistencies that is shared by all parties is that they say one thing when in opposition and do another thing when in government. That appears to be the inconsistency of the hon. Gentleman and his party.

Mr. Monro: If the Secretary of State for Industry is to spend £1,000 million on nationalisation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he could spend £999


million in that way and give the remainder to sport?

Mr. Lewis: I shall not go into that argument. I could argue for more money for Carlisle for the modernisation of its council housing. We must face these problems.
The House must eventually face the fact that leisure is becoming an important issue in the lives of people everywhere. It has a contribution to make. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am in favour of sport and I am in favour of more money being made available for sport. I realise that my hon. Friend is in the hands of the Exchequer and of Government policy as a whole.
I said that I should be brief, and I shall be. However, I should like, if it is in order, to make one suggestion. I believe that we are all concerned about hooliganism at football matches. Sport could be greatly helped if the money that football clubs and other sporting organisations pay for police protection could be provided by the Government or some other authority. That would be of tremendous help to sporting organisations throughout the country.
We have been reminded by the hon. Member for Dumfries about the Lotteries Bill. I understand that it is intended in the main to help sporting organisations. However, I believe that the whole question of lotteries is grossly distorted. I realise that many small organisations make their money from lotteries, but that is one aspect of gambling that is overestimated and overfished.
I suggest to my hon. Friend, for onward transmission to either the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is another untapped reservoir which could bring in a vast amount of money for sporting organisations. I should like to see a 2 per cent. tax on betting, on pools in particular. I estimate that such a tax would bring in £2 million or £3 million, which could be placed in a sporting pool for the assistance of the various sporting organisations. I hope that this suggestion will be considered by the Government in the near future. I am sure that all hon. Members, whatever their political complexion, will agree on that matter.
This is not a political issue. I believe that we all want to do what we can to

help sporting organisations to succeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the scale of his achievements with the limited resources at his disposal.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I am grateful for the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). In the 13 months that I have been a Member of this House, I think that this is the first occasion on which sport has been debated in any fashion. In view of the precedent which has been set by Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall contrive, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to stick to the specific wording of the Estimates:
The reasons for the increase in the grant in aid for the Sports Council.
It must be clear that the amount of additional grant aid for sport in the forthcoming year is inadequate. I question the wisdom of the Government in providing such a lowly figure. We know that the money is to be provided for sports centres and we realise that sport is a rapidly expanding part of our way of life. In view of the forecasts which have have been made over the years by Ministers of successive Governments, it is surely right to expect that, with the likelihood of increasing leisure time during the next 10 years, it is imperative that people are encouraged to participate more in sport. That is why it is imperative that sports centres must be developed at a faster rate than at present. It is also essential for the stability of society that the energies of the young are not only encouraged, but channelled into worthwhile activities.
Over the past 10 or 12 years there has been a marked and rapid expansion of interest in sport, for both participation and watching. Many sports have simply erupted with participators within the past five years. I refer to squash, badminton, golf, basket-ball, judo and sub-aqua sports. But none of those activities that I have named—I am sure that there are many more—has anything like the interest of football, rugby and cricket for spectators. However, those sports have had a rapid expansion in this country.
I do not believe that the Government have understood the situation. Indeed, they have not provided enough money to be channelled into these centres for


expansion. At the same time, local authorities and the Government together must be mindful of their responsibilities in assisting the encouragement of these sports.
In the four years from 1970 to 1974 the Sports Council's grant was quadrupled to £6 ·5 million and between 1969 and 1972 local councils increased their direct investment in new sports halls and swimming pools from £9 ·5 million to over £37 million. I well understand the problems facing the Minister. I also understand that the ravages of inflation affect sport just as much as everything else. That is the tragedy of the situation affecting not only this country but other countries. However, I earnestly hope that the Minister will be able to put forward some positive proposals when he replies to the debate.
The Labour Government have not been nearly so active in sport in the past year as they were and as the Minister was in the year 1964–65. Yet the demand is now much greater for snort than it has ever been. Indeed, I venture to question the level of morale in the sporting bodies—for example, the Sports Council and the Central Council of Physical Recreation —through the Government granting only this miserly increase of £75,000 for the year ahead.
The CCPR conference on 16th July last year which the Minister attended as chairman must have given great hope to those present, because during his address the hon. Gentleman stated that there would be a sports youth programme. The Estimates that have been produced for this year indicate that the major proportion of the £75,000 will not be channelled into that fund. I should like to know what progress has been made; in particular, what financial aid has been made available to local clubs to implement this essential programme; and whether there is any hope that this Supplementary Estimate will be increased. There is no doubt that those involved in the work of sport for young people were heartened by the Minister's announcement and will be eager to hear how this programme is progressing and whether that is one of the reasons for the increase in the grant-in-aid for the Sports Council.
Earlier I said that the importance of sport to this country was enormous and that, if it is to take its place and be successful in the international sector—the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) referred to this matter briefly—the additional £75,000 this year is inadequate. It is essential that the Government take stock of the situation swiftly and seek to increase the figure.
We must consider the lack of training facilities for the more individual of sports. Our athletes, skaters and swimmers have never had facilities comparable with those of other countries in Europe. France, Germany, Holland, the Communist countries and the United States of America place enormous importance on the rôle of their sporting activities.
I have no doubt that one of my constituents, Miss Hilary Green, a silver and bronze medallist ice dance skater, and her partner Mr. Glyn Watts will not be greatly heartened that only £75,000 is to be added to this year's budget for sporting expenditure. They have to practise at three o'clock in the morning at their ice rink and frequently have to practise when large crowds of the public attend. Therefore, it is important that more money should be spent on improving our training facilities. This Supplementary Estimate is inadequate.
The problems of my constituent are shared by others. At present, five of our top swimmers are in America, our skaters are training in America and some of our leading athletes and gold medallists of yesteryear are now leading trainers in Canada. Indeed, only recently we sent a team of eight to an athletics meeting in Katowice. Most other European countries sent teams of between 20 and 40 athletes. At least our team of eight did very well. The point is that there is a shrinking situation. The money is not adequate. A number of our top individual sportsmen are severely hindered because we are not spending enough money.
Last year the Minister was given the additional title of Minister for Sport and Recreation, with the formation of a Ministry. It would be interesting to know how many people there are in the Ministry and whether he feels that sport and recreation should be on a


par with the Arts Council, which I believe will enjoy a grant this year of £26 million.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said in asking whether a White Paper will be available shortly. This is something for which all sport has been waiting since last July but, alas, it is not available.
Finally, will the Minister announce any further grant-in-aid in 1975 as this is pre-Olympic year? There is just one year to go before the next Olympics in Canada in 1976, and I wonder whether the people of this country will enjoy greater international success if we are able to increase this Estimate during the next year, and certainly over two years.
It is crucial for the future organisation of sport in this country that the chairman of the Sports Council is named soon. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is looking at you beseechingly so that he might run for cover, but if he does not feel able to reply to that specific question tonight I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend and myself to let us know the answer.
If the Government are to provide only £75,000 additional benefit this year, will the Minister perhaps think of additional ways and means of recommending—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is quite fair to put to the Minister questions which it would not be in order for him to try to answer. The hon. Member must keep to the Estimate.

Mr. Macfarlane: I suggest that if the Minister does not feel like replying, or if he is not permitted to do so under the confines of the Estimate, he should write to us later.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not often seek the protection of the Chair, but I have been accused by the Opposition Front Bench and now by a Member on the back bench of seeking to run for cover merely because, although I should be happy to deal with the matter, I understand that I should be out of order if I did so. I think that that sort of innuendo is disgraceful.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During your absence, when this matter was raised by the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he

would be prepared to deal with it if it was in order to do so, but Mr. Deputy Speaker said that it was not. It is hitting below the belt to raise the matter for the second time after what my hon. Friend said earlier.

Mr. Macfarlane: There was no harshly implied punch below the belt. I am certain that there is no worthier and more resilient person that the Minister for Sport.
I hope that the Government will realise the all-important problem of sport in this country. It provides annually about £8 ½ million in VAT, £16 ½ million in rates and water rates and £1 million in corporation tax, and indirectly it provides more than £200 million via football and racing. I hope that the Minister understands the problems which surround the voluntary workers who provide such a backbone to sport in this country and who are facing the problem of inflation which is hitting them very hard. I trust that the Government will understand the problems which affect us all and that the extra money which is so needed will be forthcoming over the next year.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I do do know whether I shall be in order in referring to the amateur Rugby League and what assistance my hon. Friend could give if he had the wherewithal to do it.
I think that the amateur Rugby League made history on 9th March when it travelled to a small French town to play what is known as the first British amateur Rugby League international. In view of the prejudice which has been shown by the Rugby Union, and especially by Air Commodore Bob Wells—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the controversy between Rugby League and Rugby Union is getting a long way from the Estimate which the House is debating. The debate is about £75,000 in respect of pay awards, increased costs of capital work and running expenses of national sports centres. Hon. Members must not turn this into a general debate on sport.

Mr. Spriggs: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to keep within the bounds of your ruling.
There are various sports centres. Some are in London and some in the provinces,


and Members who represent constituencies in the provinces wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the need for assistance to encourage amateur sports. My hon. Friend knows that in football, for instance, those who watch the game with enthusiasm regret the fact that hands are now used as much as feet, and that even players' shirts are torn off their backs.
Has my hon. Friend received any representations from various amateur sports bodies for financial assistance towards the provision of sports centres in the regions? Will he use his good offices with various directors of education to try to obtain rugby football grounds for use by young amateur players who, while they have the enthusiasm to play the game and may turn out to be star players of the future, are refused permission to enter school sports grounds? Many of our schools, and especially the grammar schools, have first-class sports grounds for both soccer and rugby. I ask my hon. Friend whether he can, if necessary, provide the finance to obtain the use of grounds which during school holidays are not used by school football teams.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I want to add my congratulations to those which have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on his good fortune in coming top in the ballot and his good sense, if I may say so, in initiating a debate on this welcome and important topic.
My hon. Friend referred to the increase in the Sports Council grant from £3 ·6 million a year in April 1973 to the projected grant of £7 ·8 million for 1975–76. This is a doubling of the amount of finance if one looks at it in monetary terms, but one has to take into account inflation in those three or four years which has led to a depreciation in the value of money and also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member heard me a few moments ago, but this cannot be turned into a general debate on sport. Comments ought to be limited to the grant of £75,000. This is a very narrow debate indeed.

Mr. Farr: With the greatest possible respect to you, Mr. Speaker, your pre-

decessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, specifically said that the debate could be based on, in his own words, "the reason for the increase in the cost of the grant", and he added that we could discuss pay awards and the new sports centres. He said specifically that we could debate the reason for the increase in the grant, which is what I was about to do.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me a very wide and general preamble.

Mr. Farr: Mr. Deputy Speaker may well have been over-enthusiastic as a result of the Welsh rugby victory on Saturday. That may have impaired his judgment, but that was his judgment. I shall be very brief and keep within those bounds.
I was saying that this apparent doubling of the value of the grant to the Sports Council from £3 ·6 million in 1973 to a projected £7 ·8 million in 1976 has to take account of the cost of inflation and the 30 or 40 employees that the council had to take over this year from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment. With the present economic situation and with cuts in defence and education expenditure and on hospitals and health, who is to say that sport should not bear its fair share of any reduction in the rate of increase of Government grants?
One may think that there is no reason for sport to have special treatment, but there are at least two reasons. Sport is one of the few occupations which pay 8 per cent. VAT on their activities. Last year it amounted to £8 ·5 million. Sport is also one of the few activities qualifying for Government grant which also have to pay a rate bill to local authorities, which last year totalled £16 ½ million. Directly and indirectly, therefore, sport has contributed £24 ½ million in taxation. A grant of £7·8 million for 1976 will leave the Exchequer very much on the right side of the transaction.
There is no doubt that rates are crippling many sporting activities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the doctrine on this matter. If the sum demanded for a Supplementary Estimate is of the same order of magnitude as the original Estimate, the Chair allows a general debate. If, however, it is only a very small amount


compared with that for which the original grant was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be debated.

Mr. Farr: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, but if the reasons for the increase are to be debated, is it not also in order to indicate other ways of raising the money which would affect the amount of the increase necessary?
What I was going to do if I had been allowed to continue was to suggest that if rate relief were granted to sports organisations, if they were exempted from VAT or if they paid a reduced rate, that would affect the amount of the grant to the Sports Council. I hope that I shall be in order if I continue on those lines very briefly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be in order. He has referred to it. This is such a trifling increase that the debate must be limited to the administration of the Vote and how it comes about that £75,000 more is wanted on a Vote which was originally over £6 million. This is a very small increase and a very narrow debate. I am sorry.

Mr. Farr: In conclusion, perhaps I may refer to something which has been referred to in the debate without any interruption from the Chair. This relates to the finances of sports clubs which depend to a greater or smaller extent on the grant available from local authorities and the Sports Council. I refer to the Lotteries Bill which is going through the House, which in its present form, it is said, will allow local authorities to run 6,800 individual lotteries every year. Many cricket and football clubs which depend on their clubs' lotteries for raising funds will find their financial future placed in great peril.
I hope that the Minister will refer to this matter and let the House know his view of the massive participation in this area by local authorities.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I will do my best, within the bounds of order, to deal with the points which have been raised. If I trespass a little it will only be to answer the questions asked, which I assume must have been in order. But I appreciate your difficulties, Mr. Speaker. This is why I sought at an

early stage clarification of what I could say in reply.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for raising this matter and thus making a maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he makes many more such appearances, particularly from that Box, and that he will raise the subject of sport as often as he can.
The hon. Member is right to say that we get far too little opportunity to debate these matters. I regret that, because my purpose and that of the Government is served by debate and questions. Many of the difficulties that I face are due to the previous administration's action in making the Sports Council independent, so that Questions to Ministers are impossible or very difficult, and ministerial responsibility is more limited.
We are delighted to see the hon. Member for Dumfries in that post, not least because he is a distinguished sportsman himself. I know that sporting bodies like to have their affairs handled here by people with a direct interest in them.
I am not the Leader of the House, so all that I can say about the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill is that it is ready and waiting and we expect it to be dealt with this Session. The Home Secretary has that intention, and it will be introduced as soon as time allows.
Much the most important question raised today is that of finance for sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) said, we do not know where we are with this Opposition. Important as sport, leisure and recreation are to the nation—no one believes in them and fights for them, whether in government or opposition, more passionately than I do—it does sport no service to suggest that services for it can be dealt with in isolation from the general economic situation.
The trouble that I am in is this. Of course we would like to be providing a bigger share of the budget for sport. However, the Opposition continually tell us that we should cut public expenditure. We are entitled to ask—as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle asked—what the Opposition would do in these circumstances. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said "Wait for it; we shall tell you shortly". Not only


did he get nowhere near telling us; neither did his hon. Friends.
During this Session we have been urged to cut public expenditure in speeches of the former Leader of the Opposition and of the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr)—who has also had the sack from the Opposition Front Bench. I am not quite sure, in view of the fact that they have been removed to the back benches, whether the policy speeches which they made from the Opposition Front Bench only a short time ago represent the policy of the Conservative Party, but I assume that it must be so.
On 13th November the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he then was. the right hon. Member for Carshalton, said:
The blunt fact of life is that we can't afford any increase in public spending until we can see that we have turned the corner. And that won't be next year.
In other words, he meant that that would not be during 1975. He was saying on behalf of the Conservative Opposition that there should be no increase in public expenditure in 1975.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said from the Opposition Front Bench on 18th December, when talking about the Chancellor's borrowing requirement,
It must be cut. There can be no real increase in public expenditure."—[Official Report, 18th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 1607.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I do not know what has happened since I was last in the Chair, although I have a good idea. However, the Minister may discuss only the reason for the increases, in the same way as we restricted hon. Members who spoke previously.

Mr. Howell: What has happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that we are now playing the second half of this match and I am kicking uphill. Because the hon. Member for Harborough was kicking downhill, he seemed to be playing to a set of rules that was different from that which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are applying to me at present. But I assure you that if you are tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal only with the questions that have been asked, which I must assume were in order. I shall do my best.
I agree that we have a difficult financial situation. However, what the Government have done in the present economic crisis is to maintain the present level of activity of the Sports Council, which is no mean achievement in this particular year. It has the present level of expenditure plus a 20 per cent. increase to cover the inflationary costs. I do not disguise from the House the fact that these figures will mean that one or two further developments which some of us would like to see cannot go ahead as planned, but there is nothing of great seriousness there —unless the Sports Council is able to readjust its financing, although I am bound to say—I think that the House would agree—that it has a figure in its budget for well over £500,000 for aid to local authority schemes. It will probably be in the experience of most hon. Members that in the present climate ratepayers will be very much concerned. Here again, hon. Members of the Opposition are urging local authorities to cut back and to stop certain schemes and have regard to the rates.

Mr. Donald Stewart: That is peanuts.

Mr. Howell: It may be peanuts to the hon. Gentleman, but it is of extreme importance to the local authorities as a whole. I know that these comparisons are always odious. Hon. Members quote figures which support their cases, and the hon. Member for Dumfries did that. However, the average growth of the Sports Council grant between 1970 and 1974 was £1 million a year. The average growth of the grant for this year and next year is £1·2 million a year. Therefore, on those figures it is not correct to suggest that the present Government are being meaner in their approach to the Sports Council. The figures do not bear that out.
As I say, I do not want to rely on these comparisons because so often they become a little meaningless.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman should really say that only if he also gives a comparison of inflation. He must accept that inflation has risen dramatically in the last year.

Mr. Howell: If it were in order to talk about inflation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would not be in order.

Mr. Ron Lewis: A good referee.

Mr. Howell: I think it would not be in order because the hon. Member for Dumfries did not talk about it. Therefore, as he did not use the question of inflation in his comparisons it would be out of order for me to do so. I am merely giving the figures.
Turning to the financial point, of course we do not have enough money for this purpose, and we want much more. In that sense I find this debate helpful. The more often hon. Members let Ministers and Governments know what their priorities are, the more likely they are to find expression in Government policy. However, many representations have been received by the Government in recent weeks and all of them are being considered very carefully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government are reviewing the sports situation, as they are reviewing other aspects of policy, particularly arts policy. Comparisons are made between the two there. Again, it is extremely difficult to do this properly because on the whole local authorities tend to spend more on sport and recreation than they spend on the arts. But, as I say, we are reviewing the present situation because we appreciate the importance and the need, in an age of increased leisure, of sport, and of providing for that purpose as far as possible.
That brings me right on to local authority expenditure. The hon. Member for Dumfries said that local authorities face a severe clamp-down. However, local authorities' expenditure on sport and recreation has increased very considerably in recent years. It has risen from £28 million in 1970–71 to about £60 million last year. I have had difficulty in finding the exact answers for the year 1973–74, mainly because of local government reorganisation and the inability to get the final detailed figures from the new reorganised local authorities. But, on any review of finance, the descriptions given by the hon. Gentleman—"shockingly inadequate; miserable; facing a severe clamp-down"—are totally unjustified having regard to the general economic policies of the Opposition, from which the hon. Gentleman has not departed today.
We cannot leave the discussion of money for sport without talking about VAT. The hon. Member fror Dumfries, unlike myself, voted to impose VAT on sport.

Mr. Spriggs: Shame.

Mr. Howell: Many of us stated categorically at the time what we felt the effect would be. I could repeat the speeches of the Financial Secretary at the time, in which he specifically said that VAT had to be included, but I shall content myself by saying that it is costing professional soccer £2 million a year and amateur sport £1 million a year. If we include VAT on equipment, including games too, the estimate of VAT from that is about £8 million a year. One cannot break down the £8 million figure. However, it is clear that all the effects that we said would flow from VAT have flowed from it. The responsibility for that does not lie on the Government side of the House.

Mr. Farr: It does now.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Conservatives totally revolutionised the tax system by getting rid of SET and purchase tax and imposing VAT, and that that is something that cannot be put back overnight, as unfortunate as many of us think VAT to be.
I turn now to some of the other points raised by the hon. Member. I am glad that I was able during the course of the year to find a supplementary sum of £200,000 of which £75,000 is to be used for the stand which is to enclose the whole track at Crystal Palace, and to which I attach a good deal of importance. The hon. Member said that sports bodies believed in mandatory derating. They may do so, but Parliament under both Governments has never taken that view. The view has always been taken that the derating of sports grounds must be a matter for local authorities, and the views of the Government will be made known on that subject when the White Paper is published.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries thought that sports bodies were now complaining about red tape from the Treasury because of the forms they are having to fill. The allocation of grants from the Sports Council has nothing to do


with the Government. The council is now an independent body, and if that is the point he was seeking to make—

Mr. Monro: No.

Mr. Howell: Then the hon. Gentleman must have been making the VAT point.

Mr. Monro: Corporation tax.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I am sure of one thing it is that that subject does not come under this Vote. We shall leave taxation out.

Mr. Howell: How right and wise you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Saved by the whistle!

Mr. Howell: I am not saved by the whistle. I am very happy to deal with these points if they are in order. However, I have been brought up to play to the rules of the game, and that is all I am seeking to do.
It is difficult to say anything about the staff salary review. The hon. Member is quite wrong to say that this matter has been with me for a considerable time. It has been with me for a shortish time, and it is the subject of discussion with the Civil Service Department now that I have the views of the Sports Council on the matter.
The hon. Member asked me about Bisham Abbey, Lilleshall and Holme Pierrepont, all the national recreation centres. Of course we understand the difficulties. We are not providing any more money for Lilleshall because we have not been asked to provide any more. In a sense it would be improper for the Sports Council to ask for the money because it is now totally independent of the Government in how it deals with its money. This is one of the unfortunate repercussions which flowed from the Royal charter.
When the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) said that I was nothing like as active this year as I had been in the previous administration he is in one sense right, and that is partly the fault of his right hon. and hon. Friends. When I was a Minister previously I was responsible for all the decisions of the Sports Council. I had a great deal of direct responsibility, but

that is no longer the position. The Conservatives, in their wisdom or otherwise, decided that sport should be pushed outside the Government and that the council should become a chartered body. It was therefore no longer directly answerable to Parliament. The hon. Member is quite wrong otherwise in thinking that I have been less active. Never before have I spent so much of my time on sports and recreation, but the opportunities for expressing myself in the House are fewer, and that is why the hon. Member has a mistaken impression.
One of the things I have been doing since I came back to office has been to deal with morale. I found that the new arrangements had had a very severe effect upon morale in the Central Council for Physical Recreation and in its relations with the Sports Council, and much of my year has been spent bringing these bodies together, recreating harmony and raising morale. I am glad to say that the process is paying off, and I am sure that in the future we shall get the partnership that all of us want to see.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am aware of the problems. If the Minister is saying that his activity in the past year has not been so intense as it was 10 years ago, why were the functions of his Ministry and his own terms of reference extended so substantially?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is offside.

Mr. Macfarlane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was wondering whether the additional £75,000 in the Supplementary Estimates might be attributed in some way to this extended Ministry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, the hon. Member is now in the penalty area.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member may be in the penalty area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he has still muffed the shot.

Mr. Monro: On the point about the national recreation centres, and since the Minister has not the responsibility for initiating projects, surely he accepts that the Sports Council will expand its programme only if it has sufficient capital to spend. That is our criticism. The sys-does not allow the national recreation


centres to have enough money because of the size of the Sports Council grant.

Mr. Howell: That is not so. At the present time not only is the Crystal Palace stand being built but a new swimming pool is being constructed there too. At Bisham Abbey there has been started this year, as a result of the grant to the Sports Council, a new sports complex. The hon. Member referred to Holm Pierrepont and the rowing championships, and I am glad to say that resources are adequate for that work to be undertaken too.
In addition, the Sports Council has made its commitments to governing bodies, administration and coaching grants. The grant for those subjects will exceed £1 million this year, and that is almost twice the grant level of two years ago. The hon. Member can therefore be satisfied that even with all our difficulties we are making progress in those respects. I entirely agree that we want multi-purpose sports centres. A record number of these have been built in the last few years, and that reflects credit on both administrations. Both have been very sensibly following the same policy of getting value for public money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle asked about the importance the Government attach to leisure. We attach tremendous importance to increased leisure, to the advent of earlier retirement, to longer holidays and to a shorter working week. All those aspects of developing social policy are bound to put more pressure on sports, recreation and leisure services and make a case for more resources to be allocated as and when the country can find them. He said that we are in the hands of the Chancellor. My right hon. Friend accepts that in the whole sphere of leisure, which includes the arts as well as sport, the Government must do what they can.
The vexed problem of hooliganism was raised by my hon. Friend in the only way that made it in order. He asked whether any of this money was produced for purposes of police protection. Police protection is provided free by the police forces outside football grounds, but it has to be paid for inside the grounds. Many clubs complain about this but it has always been the case: they cannot eat their cake and have it. A sports ground is a private place, and sports clubs like

to have control over their grounds. Therefore, they have to pay for police protection.
This year I visited every First Division ground to have discussions with the football authorities on the spot. At every football ground the police had arranged with the club to provide the number of policemen they felt ought to be present. They charged for that number. However, the police forces realised that for reasons of public order many more policemen were, regrettably, necessary. I am sure that the clubs will agree that they are getting good value for money in these difficult days and that they will join with me when I say that we have nothing but praise for the way the police, week in and week out, face up to hooliganism with great tolerance and firmness.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said and I would add my tribute to his. We are living in days of competition and cut price. Would he consider cutting the price that football clubs pay for police protection?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall shortly be having a debate about hooliganism in football. For the sake of the House we must keep to the rules outlined first by me and later, I understand, by Mr. Speaker when he took the Chair.

Mr. Howell: I turn to the subject of small lotteries. That is not my responsibility. The House has passed a measure on this subject, whatever the hon. Member for Harborough and my hon. Friend think about it. My hon. Friend adopted the rôle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked for a 2 per cent. tax on betting duty. I shall see that that view is conveyed to the Chancellor. This is one of the difficulties of having a debate on financial matters less than a month before the Budget.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked about the youth sports programme and the White Paper. I have been trying to get the relationship right between the Sports Council and the CCPR. I have consulted them widely—much more widely than they were consulted four years ago when there was a major change in the rôle of the Sports Council. It would be discourteous to


answer questions about the Sports Council or to produce a White Paper on a whole range of issues until I have had the benefit of its official advice. I received advice from the Sports Council two weeks ago. Although I know what the CCPR will say, because it kindly sent me an advance copy of its recommendations, it has yet formally to adopt them at an executive meeting. The delay is not all on my side. If we consult everyone we have to give them the opportunity to offer their advice.
The CCPR has carried out an excellent exercise in consulting its five divisions. The advice I shall receive represents the in-depth, considered opinion of British sport.
There is no question about British participation in the Olympics or of training being jeopardised for want of public funds. Indeed, the reverse is true. I have had talks with the British Olympics Association, and it is its view that its public appeal should be spread over four years and that the money should go towards sending the team to Canada and helping towards the training of the team to go to Moscow for the 1980 Olympics.
I am anxious to have centres of excellence for British sportsmen and to create sports bursaries. However, the House will have to wait for my White Paper, where it will find some more words of wisdom on that subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) asked me some vitally important questions about educational facilities. He mentioned rugby but this applies to Rugby Union, Rugby League, soccer, cricket and many other sports. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science agrees emphatically with me, as do other Ministers, that all educational facilities should be opened up as much as possible. These facilities are provided by public capital resources and should be used as much as possible during the year. There will be a strong, challenging paragraph in the White Paper on this subject. I am happy to report to the House that co-operation between by Ministry and the Department of Education and Science has never been more intense, active and constructice than it is at present.

Mr. Farr: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he will undertake to approach the Chancellor before he formulates his Budget—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Farr: —to get a remit of VAT.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He might not have heard me the first time but he surely heard me the second time. That is beyond the scope of this debate.

Mr. Howell: It is indeed. However, I am in constant communication with all my ministerial colleagues. This is a limited debate because of the difficulties. I hope that this debate will encourage hon. Members to seek other opportunities to debate our Estimates or specific questions which arise in sport. The Opposition might use their Supply Days for this purpose, in which case we shall be able to cover a wider remit. The White Paper, which will be issued during the early summer, might provide the next suitable opportunity for a discussion, not only on the limited nuts and bolts issues of money but on important questions of philosophy and social policy.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for the constructive way in which they have approached the various issues.

Orders of the Day — FISHING INDUSTRY

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I wish to address myself to Class III Vote 7 subheads A4A and A6. As will be appreciated, this is a considerably wider Vote than that which has just been discussed. I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to deal with a large number of matters affecting the fishing industry. The industry is full of complexities. It is often difficult to recommend improvements for one section without treading on the toes of another section or even depriving it of some of its rights.
I shall attempt to highlight some of the fears and problems which fishermen face at all levels of their business. I use the term "business" intentionally. I believe that for the vast majority of those who sail in fishing fleets this is how they see their industry. They enjoy a greater


participation than many and, despite the hazards, their job satisfaction is enormous. I have met very few fishermen who, all things being equal, would wish to change their employment. The trouble is that at the moment all things are not equal and the industry is fighting for its survival.
I welcome the Government's announcement earlier this month about temporary aid. I am, however, unhappy about certain exclusions about which I shall have something more to say later. The Scottish Trawlers Federation has calculated the scheme to be worth about £700,000. While this will be of assistance to boats already at sea which are faced with ever-increasing costs and a fall in market prices, it is unlikely to prove a sufficient incentive, at the rates outlined in the Government's statement, to entice back to the fishing grounds boats which are presently tied up.
Most important is the fact that it is a temporary help. While it is most welcome, it will not solve the long-term problem. I would counsel the Minister to enter into early discussions with representatives of the various fishing interests to determine the principles of a more permanent scheme of support to follow after June 1975. At the moment there is no suggestion of any likelihood of increased market prices. Indeed, if the present trend is followed the market for United Kingdom fresh fish could worsen considerably.
Taking the cumulative effect of the January-February catch landed at Aberdeen in 1975, there is a reduction of 11·7 per cent. on 1974 prices. Other ports show a similar decline, but I use the Aberdeen figures because they were kindly provided for me. Given the high incidence of foreign fish imports, together with the stockpiling of fish throughout the world, it has now become essential for the Government to re-examine their attitudes towards third-country fish imports.
France has already imposed a complete ban and I see no reason why similar action could not be considered by this country. The argument that we cannot do this because of EEC membership is surely overcome when we consider the steps that France has taken. It would be a great pity if our fishermen had to resort to the extreme measures which their

French neighbours took to gain some sort of Government recognition.
I must ask why the temporary aid is not being extended to vessels of less than 40 feet in length.
The Minister must be aware that over the years limits have been agreed regarding the size of craft allowed to fish in certain areas. There is a considerable number of boats which have been designed and constructed with this in mind. The 40-ft. limit excludes a good number of vessels of about 35 ft. which perform functions almost identical to those of the 40-ft. craft but which operate in areas of restriction. I suggest that assistance be extended to include those vessels. Further, I am disappointed that a way has not been found of assisting those engaged primarily in shell fishing. These are the real small inshore fishermen. They are being discriminated against because they do not fish for white fish or herring.
Yet those are the people who all too often suffer severe damage to their gear by illegal fishing by larger craft. I have known a prawn fisherman to lose £400 worth of tackle in one night as a result of a large trawler coming in, probably with lights out, and sweeping all before it. I am afraid that the fishery protection service is woefully inadequate. The Government must give immediate attention to this problem.
In the meantime, and until such time as a proper fishery protection service can be extended to inshore fishermen, I reiterate a suggestion I made in a letter to the Minister recently. This concerns a stretch of water fished by inshore fishermen from Kyle and Applecross in my constituency of Ross and Cromarty. Over the years the fishermen there have been plagued by illegal fishing by larger craft in a sea bounded in the south by Kyle Rhea and in the north by a line from the north end of the Isle of Skye to Gairloch. Byelaws have recently been published and one is being considered locally in connection with the BUTEC range which will shortly be in operation in that area. I suggest that included in those byelaws should be a provision to the effect that in the sea area I have mentioned there should be a ban on all forms of trawling, whether ground trawling, which is illegal inside the 3-mile limit anyway, or midwater pair trawling, which is not


illegal but which causes great damage in the area.
Pair trawling is such a serious matter in such an area that it constitutes a hazard to the livelihood of local fishermen. In addition, such a measure would have the effect of creating a fish conservation area which would help replenish the depleted fish stocks in surrounding waters. This problem may not be directly relevant to the Department of Defence or to the byelaws, but if this suggestion were incorporated the Ministry would not object.
I come now to a problem facing another type of fisherman altogether. I understand that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Scotland shortly to lay an order the purpose of which would be to place a total ban on gill netting. I appreciate that certain sections of the industry have been pressing for such a measure for some time. I accept that in a few places it may be justified, but I ask the Minister carefully to consider the suggestion I am now putting forward.
One of the key factors about this form of fishing is that the net must be attached to the shore. The abuse which has been taking place arises from the fact that the net has in some instances been stretched as far as three or four miles out from the short. Few would disagree that that practice is wrong. I ask that, rather than impose a total ban, the Minister should stipulate a certain distance beyond which it would be illegal to lay a net from the shore. I suggest that 800 yards might be a suitable distance. Few who use this type of method would want to lay nets more than about 600 yards from the shore. This would leave them a safety margin. By imposing a complete ban on this practice, many fishermen in a small way of business would be severely penalised.
I understand that the use of filament nets is also likely to be banned. It would be most unfair to do this without warning. If it is the Minister's intention to include such nets in the order, he ought to give due warning to those who use nets of this type that as at some future date it is the Government's intention to ban them. This would give these people the opportunity to replace their tackle.
I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland of another group of fishermen who have their eyes focussed on him. I refer to those who fish largely for sport and who have been waiting, since the publication some years ago of the Hunter Report, for legislation on freshwater fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) did much work on a proposed piece of legislation which he hoped to introduce and which would have been introduced by now had not we been defeated in February 1974. Governments of both parties have had good intentions on this matter, but parliamentary time has been at a premium. Nevertheless. I feel sure that such a Bill would be of much greater value than some of the Government's obnoxious measures.
I have dealt in some detail with a number of the problems confronting the fishing industry but I have not mentioned the question of limits or the EEC. I tabled a great many Questions at the end of last week but unfortunately I received the answers only shortly before I came into the Chamber, and therefore I have not been able to use them as I might have wished. However I have distributed them among my hon. Friends who, because they will be speaking later, will no doubt use them more adequately.
I am sure that I speak for every hon. Member when I say that on many previous occasions the question of the 200-mile limit has been spoken to. At this stage all I can say is that I wholly support the arguments deployed in favour of such a limit, and, although it is highly desirable, the 50-mile limit for herring fishing has become a positive necessity.
I refer to two of the Questions which I tabled. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the white fish catch and of the herring catch in each of the past five years in the waters around Scotland was caught within six miles, within 12 miles, within 50 miles and within 200 miles respectively. I received a reply confirming the need for a 50-mile limit as soon as possible, namely, that all herring was caught within a 50-mile limit and there was no record of catches between 50 and 200 miles. All but 11 per cent. of the white fish was also caught within a 50-mile limit.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was as impressed as we all were by the arguments submitted to us by the fishing delegation which visited the House in January. Those men did not come here in a militant mood. They tried to persuade us and to argue their case. All of us who met them felt that they made a very good case and that we would do all we could to help them in the fearful problem which they faced.
Just outside the existing 12-mile limit off North-West Scotland the herring stocks are being plundered by foreign fleets. I am advised that the Norwegians, Faroese and Icelanders are fishing indiscriminately. It has been suggested to me from within the fishing industry that little attention is being paid to the question of quota. Will the Minister confirm that those countries are enforcing the strict checks which we apply to boats operating from our ports, and is there any means by which this can be independently examined by representatives of NEAFC?
Our own industry has nothing to fear in this matter, and our figures can be checked by anyone. But there is growing dissatisfaction within the industry about the present quotas and I trust that the Government will watch this matter very closely. It is impossible to say when the Law of the Sea Conference will come to a decision on the question of limits. I suggest to the Minister that we should not wait for such a decision regarding a 50-mile limit for herring but that the Government should enter into consultations with the other countries concerned if the Geneva talks do not produce agreements.
I tabled a Question to the Foreign Office asking the Secretary of State what negotiations had taken place with member countries of the EEC in relation to the common fisheries policies, particularly with regard to the proposed 200-mile fishing limit. I was relieved to receive a reply to the effect that the Government had made it clear to the other member States that if, following the Law of the Sea Conference, there was a general extension of fisheries limits to 200 miles the common fisheries policy would need to be modified considerably. I understand that the commission has made proposals and there have already been preliminary discussions about them.
I am very sorry that the Prime Minister, when he was in Dublin last week, did not make this a prime issue in his discussions. The answer which I received from the Foreign Office, although encouraging, is by no means likely to convince the fishermen of the Government's good intentions.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns was very much involved in the negotiations which took place while the Conservative Party was in government in the months leading up to entry to the EEC in 1972. He made it clear at that time that it was the then Government's intention to ensure that when 1982 came the position of the inshore fishermen would be protected, as it is at the moment. I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that the present Government will give the same priority to this question and will seek a common fisheries policy in order to prevent free access to each other's territorial waters.
We are plagued by Russians, Poles, Norwegians, Faroese and Icelanders, not to mention certain EEC countries, but it would be quite wrong for anyone to pretend that our main fear stems from the EEC countries, because countries outwith the EEC are just as great a menace to our fishing industry as any of those within it. But the Government must be seen to be acting quickly and firmly.
The problems which I have outlined are among many which face the fishing industry. The great difficulty is that the industry has to look ahead. Its future is uncertain. Whether a 200-mile limit or a 50-mile limit is achieved, the industry will face many problems, not least those arising from entry to the EEC. I speak as one who is absolutely in favour of our staying in the EEC because the benefits to this country far outweigh the disadvantages. But it is imperative that the fishing industry, particularly the inshore fishing industry, should be wholly protected in the negotiations into which the Government will soon enter.
I am glad to have had the opportunity of raising the problems which face the fishing industry, and I am grateful to the Minister and to other hon. Members for being present tonight.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Those of us who represent fishing ports do not have many chances to debate the fishing industry, so we are grateful to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) for seizing the opportunity to do so. Fishing is the Cinderella in comparison with its massive partner agriculture in that office in Whitehall, but with our new Minister of State I am sure that as well as sympathy we shall have action in the coming months.
It has been said that this is a momentous year, but it is also a dangerous year. Unless something is done, this year will see the end of some fishing firms which fish in inshore waters and have insufficient cash to weather the storm. Families with vessels of less than 40 feet in length receive no monetary assistance, whereas wealthier firms in Hull get, I think, £90 a day while they are at sea. This year will settle the future of many in the industry.
The question is: what is to be the future of the industry? Last Saturday there was a seminar in Hull which was attended by representatives of all sections of the industry, and my colleagues in the House on both sides who buy Fishing News will know about it. That seminar was attended by owners, deck hands, union officials, merchants and fishmongers. Mr. Charles Meek, from Edinburgh, made a helpful speech about the 50-mile limit and the fishermen north of the Tweed who wish to take action now. He talked about the politics of persuasion.
By way of persuasion, I suggest to my colleagues that we are in the same difficulty and that, instead of agitating for a 50-mile limit, we should wait until after the Geneva conference and not take the law into our own hands. I believe that then there will be a consensus of perhaps 70 fishing nations for the extension of limits not to 50 miles but to 200 miles. In that event, I should like my colleagues in the late summer or early autumn to urge the Government to take action to extend our limits.
As Austin Laing said on Saturday in Hull, if we were left behind in claiming limits we should be in an awful mess, and there would be a chaotic scramble involving not only Chile and Senegal but many of the so-called civilised States of

Western Europe which might take the law into their own hands. Norway comes to mind. I should not like to see my colleagues north of the Tweed behaving as the Icelanders did. We had plenty to say about that 12 months or two years ago, when they used shot—blank, of course—against our skippers. We did not like it.
We should think twice about trying to extend by force the limits to 50 miles off the Scottish coast. For one thing, we should need fishery protection. How would Russian, Polish or Norwegian vessels, which came within the 50-mile limit be stopped? The skippers of the vessels would say "The Limit is still 12 miles. Stop us if you can." I should deplore such incidents, as we all deplored similar incidents with the Icelanders.
After 30th June, when the £6¼ million expires, what is our future? The fishing industry, whether north or south of the Tweed, or in Northern Ireland, will not wish to continue to receive perpetual handouts from any Government. We must consider some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty which might help to stabilise our fishing industry and give fishermen a better chance of paying their way and not being dependent on handouts from the Government.
I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman said about the control of imports. I had a deputation in Hull on Saturday morning from skippers and others who are deeply concerned about imports from Norway—and the same is true of the skippers in Fleetwood. Norway is not in the EEC and Norway is not usually a lawless State. We have imports from Iceland where export subsidies are immensely increased by continuing devaluation of the kroner. Holland, by artificially low export prices for plaice, is almost killing off the Lowestoft market. Most people will accept that Austin Laing knows a little about this subject. and he said that the Government were aware of the depressed state of the market but he was not sure that they also realised that if imports continued to undermine quayside prices the main object of the subsidy, which was to slow the decline in the fishing fleet might well be defeated. Our task is to stiffen our Government. This is a job for them.
France is in the EEC, which is supposed to have a common fisheries policy. If the French look after their people by stopping the unfair competition caused by putting large amounts of fish on their domestic market, why should not we look after our own people? I do not often like to copy the French The Gaullists are the biggest menace inside the EEC, and they have been the biggest stumbling block of the last few years. The French may quote theology about the Common Market but they do not always abide by it. They take the law into their own hands. We should be acting legally if, on behalf of our own people, we did what the French are doing.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty that we should extend the limits. A lot of nonsense is being talked about Norway, Spain and other countries which object to Her Majesty's Government's planting a flag on the island of Rockall off the north-west coast of Scotland. That island by the 1958 convention is ours by any international understanding. Who wants to fish there, other than ourselves? Who will want to fish off that part of Scotland in future whether it is within a 12-mile limit, a 50-mile limit or a 200-mile limit?
It is important that we should clear our minds about the common fisheries policy. It is extraordinary that during the Dublin meeting the subject was apparently not mentioned. It now looks as though Her Majesty's Government will suggest to the people, in face of the referendum, that we should stay in the EEC, and, indeed that they will so advise our people to vote. On Saturday in Hull I met a large number deep-sea and inshore fishermen who said "Whether we like the EEC or not, if it is a matter of continuing a common fisheries policy, count us out." They are men who, on balance of the other circumstances, wish to stay in the Common Market. Those fishermen have seen a situation where the Dutch, Belgians, Danes and others have fished out their own waters, and they will now be enabled to come the distance of 50, 100 or 150 miles and fish off our shores—the shores of the Yorkshire coast, Northumberland, Aberdeen and elsewhere. This is just not good enough. It will also similarly happen off the South Coast.
All those in the fishing industry are at one on this matter. It is a burning issue, and will become hotter as the weeks go on. It will increase as the debate peps up leading to the vote on the referendum some time in June or July.
There are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and so I shall be brief. We have indeed been fortunate to have this debate at this moment when this extremely important issue is so topical. I plead with the Minister to remember that we are dealing with the future of some of the finest men in the nation. The fishing industry is the most genuine of all. It is comprised of men who face danger, whether it be in the Arctic or off Lands End. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty said that these men go to sea because they want to do so. They have not opted for a safe or easy job elsewhere. They have chosen to go to sea and face danger. It is our duty to ensure that we do not let them down.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Stewart: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on his good fortune in the Ballot and also for choosing the subject of fisheries for discussion. I would point out to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) that both the present subject and the previous one were instituted by Scottish Members of Parliament. I am in almost total agreement with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. I agreed with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. West but disagreed with others.
On the question of entry in the EEC, there is no doubt that both the Conservative Government in their day and the Labour Government in their renegotiations have neglected fishing interests. The Conservative Government had an excellent argument for dealing with the original Six in that they had no fisheries whatever to put into the common pool. Therefore, even at that stage the Government of the day might have taken a much stiffer line.
I was much disturbed to hear the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs say recently that fisheries policy was not a matter which had been


covered during talks in Brussels, Dublin and elsewhere. It is a matter that will have to be straightened out. Our fisheries are under attack from other countries, quite apart from the EEC nations. The situation will alter in 1982 since other nations' vessels will have the same rights as our own vessels to fish in our waters. Those other nations have an enormous number of vessels—estimated at about 25,000. They fish with more sophisticated gear than that which is used on many of our vessels. Within a short time I can foresee our fisheries being left in a depleted condition.
I turn to the subject of the policing of fishing grounds. Again, over the years Conservative and Labour Governments have neglected the interests of the Scottish fisheries. I discovered from a recent answer given by the Secretary of State for Scotland that in December only two vessels were at sea on fishery protection duties. I appreciate that the Minister said in a recent letter that there are crewing difficulties not confined to the fishery protection service or to this country. However, surely the Department should regard the protection of fishery grounds as a matter of high priority and, through financial inducements or otherwise, seek to obtain officers to crew the ships.
I appreciate the help given by the "Westra" in the fleet, but it is inexplicable that the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed to the "Jura" being seconded to oil-rig protection duties. The Minister has stated that the "Jura" will also at the same time carry out fishery protection duties. With great respect, I find it almost impossible to accept that if that vessel is engaged in oil-rig protection she will at the same time be able to undertake fishery protection within the limits.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the 50-mile limit and made a plea for no precipitate action to be taken. I give the hon. Gentleman his due since he did not speak in a party sense about fisheries. The whole point of the argument relates to the degree of urgency. Many of us felt that, although after the Geneva Conference we might well have a 200-mile limit, in the meantime the fisheries might be destroyed. I repeat that the matter is urgent. The

damage is so extensive that we can hardly expect to wait any great length of time before anything is done about the situation.
The suggestion has been made by Professor Ian MacGibbon that countries such as Norway, the United Kingdom and perhaps the Soviet Union could come to some ad hoc agreement on the extension of limits.

Mr. James Johnson: Is there any scientific evidence that the whole of the stock could be cleaned out in the months ahead in this way? If that is the case, why is it that Charles Meek, the Chairman of the White Fish Authority, should say that we can wait a number of months and that our job is to come together on these matters involving limits?

Mr. Stewart: The fact is that the figures of landings have been falling all this year. The fishermen in their representations have been quite definite. I am sure that they are sincere in their representations.
I turn to the question of subsidies, which seem to have been tailored to the needs of the large trawler fleets. I appreciate that the large fleets need assistance, but it is unfortunate that some of the smaller vessels have been cut out. In my constituency the cutting out of the vessels which fish for shell fish is very much resented because some fairly large-sized boats are engaged in that industry. In view of the difficulties about size and the restrictions on the fish the boats go after, one way out of the problem might simply be to change the subsidies to a system of rebates on the fuel used in the vessels. I shall be interested to have the Minister's reaction to that suggestion.
There is great uncertainty in the industry. For the first time for many years there are no new boats on order in my constituency. About two weeks ago a boatyard was closed on the east coast of Scotland. Boats are for sale all around the coast. I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said about this body of men in a very honourable occupation, working hard, and enduring danger and discomfort. They do not owe anybody a living, but we owe them the backing they deserve when their industry goes through a particularly bad time.

8.11 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) for initiating the debate. It is quite apparent, especially from what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) has said, that there is on both sides of the House a desire to see whether we can all combine to do the best we can for the fishing industry in the difficult time which it faces.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Law of the Sea Conference. I have been reading with great interest a report in the Fishing News of 14th March of what was said at that conference. Even if we are successful at the conference in getting the limit extended to 200 miles, how long does the Minister think it will be after agreement has been reached that we could achieve general agreement between all the countries for the alterations necessary to bring a 200-mile limit into operation? Is it practical politics to believe that at the stroke of a pen, for example, the whole of the Russian interest in the North Sea would suddenly be removed? I believe that it would have to be phased in over a period of years. This is why the request by the herring fleet in Scotland for a 50-mile limit at present needs to be closely examined.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there was scientific evidence that the herring stocks could be obliterated in a comparatively short time. He and several other hon. Gentlemen listened about two weeks ago to one of our leading fish research officers, who pointed out that the immature herring was at greater risk outside the 50-mile limit than at any other time.
We should be seeing whether we can get some form of agreement to restrict industrial fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty asked a Question today relating to industrial fishing, and was kind enough to circulate to me the Minister's answer that these figures were not readily available. But I understand that the OECD Review of Fisheries Yearbook shows that the North Atlantic region's fishing for conversion to fish meal for the year 1972 was about 4 million tonnes, with Norway and Denmark together accounting for 3·3 million tonnes, or 82 per cent. Russia and Poland

are not in the OECD, and their catches are not included.
I think I am right in saying that our total catch of fish, which is mainly in the North Sea, is just under 1 million tonnes. Therefore, if the OECD countries are catching 4 million tonnes and there are the industrial catches of Russia and the Polish fleet in addition, there is a real risk that if we do not take steps to restrict industrial fishing the sort of trouble that is threatening the herring stocks will actually come. Whilst we hope that the extension of the limits as a result of the conference will help us, unless we take steps to restrict industrial fishing as quickly as we can there will be a real danger to our fishing fleets.
Other hon. Members have already mentioned the interim award which has been given for six months to the fishing industry, and the fact that smaller boats are not included. One of the figures in the OECD review showed boats of about 60 feet to 65 feet in length having operating costs at £7 a day in 1973 which increased to £16 in 1974. However, for the smaller vessels the costs had gone up from £1 to £3, which showed an increased cost for oil of three times, whereas for the medium-sized boat the costs had gone up by just over 50 per cent.
In the light of these figures there is a very real need to ask the Minister to see whether he can look again at the question of help to boats which are under 40 feet in length. There is a real need to bring back confidence to the industry. I have a boatyard in my constituency which has recently run into trouble. It is likely to close down, but I hope that the boats it is at present fitting out will be completed. However, there is a boat which I saw two or three weeks ago and the keel had just been laid, but undoubtedly this order will have to be scrapped.
The question of stocks of fish which are held in cold store is also something that needs to be looked at. I asked a question of the Minister and was told that there are 48,000 tons of frozen fish held in cold store as at the 31st January this year. Our having all that fish in cold store, together with falling prices for the fish which we land at our ports, must reinforce the need to control the amount of fish allowed into the country. The


problem is world wide. It is not only in this country that the stores are full of fish. I understand that the same applies in North America, and that some of our troubles have come from there.
One other subject which has not been mentioned concerning the Law of the Sea Conference, and the interests of the fishing industry in Scotland on a different level, is what is done for the protection of the Atlantic salmon. While we seek to extend our limits, we know that the salmon bred in our rivers feed well outside that limit, and can be, and often are, caught in large numbers there. Therefore, while we may reasonably hope that a 200-mile limit would be satisfactory for many of the species which we should like to catch, and which we have been catching, the North Atlantic salmon could be much at risk without special arrangements.
My other point concerns fishery protection. Could there not be more cooperation between the Royal Air Force and the fishery protection services? We know from experience that many sorties are flown over the North Sea by RAF planes. They should be able, from photographic reconnaissance and so on, to plot the position of ships, so that the fishery protection vessels may be better enabled to take more effective action.
There are many other points that I could raise on this all-important matter for our fishing industry, but the really important one is to see what interim measures we can introduce to bridge the gap between agreement on the 200-mile limit, if agreement is reached, and the time when it becomes effective. I do not believe that it will be possible, by a stroke of the pen, suddenly to go to 200-miles. That is why interim protection is essential if our fishing industry is to survive.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I very much enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who went right through several of the most important points which we are considering. The port of Fleetwood knows only too well what can happen when a fishery is fished out. We used to be considered the great hake port of the West Coast, but, as hon. Members from

Scotland will know, the hake fishery round the Minches was fished out by Spaniards and other foreigners by pair-fishing. Today hake is a rare fish in Fleetwood. Where we used to specialise in it, now we get it purely by chance. Therefore, we should take extremely seriously any threat to a particular fishery.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) for initiating the debate. I must tell the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that it is not only the Scots who are devoted to the industry. Even nationalist Lancastrians and Yorkshire-men such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) take a great interest in it and pursue the matter from time to time.
I should like to tell the Minister of the position in my port. The Fishing News of 14th March, under the heading
Fleetwood Hit By Price Drop",
said:
Evidence of the tremendous fall in fish prices over the last year is given in the latest statistics provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Nowhere is the trend shown more clearly than at Fleetwood. In November 1974, 48,919 cwt. of fish was landed at the port and sold for £601,613. In 1973, for the same month, the figures were 50,370 cwt. which sold for £746,307.
There are later figures which show trend to be getting even worse.
I have figures from the Fleetwood Fishing Vessel Owners' Association for the last few landings. Total landings were as follows: Friday 7th March, 2,076 kits, of which 781 kits of prime fish went to fish meal; Monday 10th March, 3,672 kits, with 927 to fishmeal; Wednesday 12th March, 3,391 kits, with 919 to fishmeal. That means that one-quarter to one-third of the catch of prime fish which could be eaten by people was going to the fishmeal factories. It was not industrial fishing but edible fish, which the people of this and other countries could eat. In a starving world, that seems remarkable.
At the same time, from the other side, as we call it—the Humber ports—there are reports that in Hull about one-sxith of the catch is going for fishmeal. Obviously the industry is in a bad state when such figures can be given in a debate of this kind.
At the same time as the price has fallen and the bottom has dropped out of the fish market, costs have increased. The association says that in September 1973 the price of gas oil was £16·70 per ton. It is now £54·20. Apart from the increase in oil prices and the remarkable increase in the price of gear, the cost of everything else needed to run a fishing vessel has increased.
We should judge the subsidy against that background. We welcome the operational subsidy, for which we have pleaded for about a year. I do not like to quibble because I know that the Minister has to put up a fight against the Treasury for subsidies of this nature, amounting to £6,500,000. However, the horticulturists in my constituency bitterly regret the decision, which seems to have caused £6,500,000 to be taken away from them. I cannot win on this issue. I regret what has been done for the horticulturists while welcoming the help given to the fishermen.
As regards the 40 ft. limit, at one time length was the governing factor. However, new engines have been fitted to inshore vessels of less than 40 ft., which have a longer range and arc more powerful than vessels of more than 40 ft. The vessels belonging to fishermen in my constituency are 38·5 ft. in length. Five of those vessels were built with the help of White Fish Authority grants and loans. Those vessels are now excluded. I know that this is not an easy matter for the Government. However, the inshore fishing industry feels very strongly about it, and it would be a good thing if the Minister could help the industry along those lines.
The root of the problem of low prices, which is now faced by the deep-sea fishing industry, is tied up with the EEC fisheries policy and the general world situation. It is even more tied up with the fact that we are still trying to obtain cheap food in an age when it no longer exists and when the cost of producing food, including fish, is rising rapidly.
The guidelines set by the EEC policy board for fisheries are lamentably low. We must ensure that our producers of food receive a fair return from the market, and EEC policy should be formed on this basis. It is ludicrous to pursue a policy based on the old limits

when there may be a fantastic change in the limits later this year with the adoption of a 200-mile limit, although the industry will claim a 50-mile limit to be totally controlled by the United Kingdom.
I should like to know what is happening in Brussels with regard to the EEC fisheries policy negotiations. A policy must be formulated, preferably before the end of the Law of the Sea Conference if possible.
If the French Government impose a ban on imports, that will show that EEC policy is in disarray. Therefore this is the best time, if we act quickly, to complete renegotiations in our own interests.
A temporary ban on the landings of foreign fish is necessary. Norway and Poland are sending large quantities of fish to the United Kingdom. Their other markets, especially the United States, have fallen, and the United Kingdom is the dumping ground. It is time that every British Government reacted more quickly to dumping.
I wish to refer to the question of what will happen when the Icelandic agreement runs out in September. That problem affects the whole fishing industry, and certainly the Aberdeen and Humber ports. The owners and fishermen in my constituency want to know the present state of the negotiations with the Icelandic Government. Will there be another cod war in October? What plans have the Government in the event of no agreement being reached?
The Minister will come to realise that on all these matters there is much general support in the House for seeing that the industry is put on the right road. It is facing very severe problems, and we should like to hear from the Minister about some positive action. Talk will go down very badly in the fishing industries. It is action that we want, not talk.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The whole fishing industry, deep-sea and inshore, has been overtaken by this crisis in both fuel and gear costs. If there was one small result to come from the crisis it was that the industry was united and came together to the Minister saying "We are all affected and we need temporary assistance." It did not come looking for


permanent feather-bedding from the Government. What it wanted was some way of getting over a crisis.
It was extremely disappointing that the Minister chose so divisive a way to deal with the crisis as the selection of an arbitrary limit which resulted in excluding from the assistance almost the whole of the inshore section of the industry at a time when, with other divisive problems facing them, the two sections of the industry were drawing together so well. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) has sought to bring the industry together. I suspect that he shares my disappointment that so divisive an idea as the 40 ft. limit on the subsidy should have been introduced.
I ask the Minister to consider the position at a few of the Northumbria ports. In the port of Amble, for example, there are 14 boats under 40 ft. and six over 40 ft. The under-40 ft. boats are only a few inches below the limit, and three of them are engaged in white fishing. The Minister's explanation of the selection of this arbitrary limit is that it is to distinguish boats in those sections of fishing in which there is what he describes as a serious structural situation. He has singled out white fishing. Vessels engaged in white fishing which are only inches below this limit are excluded from the assistance.
At the port of Seahouses there are 12 vessels under 40 ft and seven over 40 ft. I ask the Minister to think of the divisive effect upon any fishing community when vessels engaged in the same kind of fishing are arbitrarily singled out, with the result that some have benefit and others have none.
At the port of North Shields the situation is even more absurd. There are only a few boats under 40 ft but there are 30 over 40 ft, many of which are engaged in inshore fishing.
The Minister has chosen a limit which does not make sense.

Mr. James Johnson: Since the hon. Gentleman is talking about my own home and since I know many of these fishing families, will he say whether in his view the 40 ft limit is useless and whether it should be 35 ft or 38 ft?

Mr. Beith: The difficulty of using a figure and making it the basis for calculations is that fishing nowadays does not depend on the size of vessels, as the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) pointed out. A number of the boats which I have cited as being just under 40 ft have engines which will carry them over a longer range than some of those above the limit. That suggests that any limit on length is perhaps the least appropriate method to choose. If a limit had to be chosen, I should prefer to see a lower one, perhaps 25 ft or 30 ft. But it is an unsatisfactory measure to use when there are other ways it could be done. At the very least, there should not be an absolute cut-off point at 40 ft but a scale which graded right down to a lower figure.
Whenever I have tabled Questions to the Minister on the subject I have been surprised by his reaction and by the way that replies on issues connected with his statement suggest that the whole scheme had been explained satisfactorily in the original statement. Recently, the hon. Gentleman answered two Questions, one by me and one by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), and in his replies the Minister said that it was explained that the arrangements announced on 27th February were aimed at avoiding the development of a serious structural situation for certain classes of vessels fishing for white fish and herring. Although there were aspects of the statement of 27th February which we welcomed, it cannot be said that it explained anything very much. It did not explain the reason for the limit. It did not explain why shell-fishing vessels were excluded whether under or over 40 ft. The reports of the Press conference suggest that there was confusion at the time as to whether shell-fishing vessels were or were not included. It comes hard for the Minister to suggest that everything was totally and satisfactorily explained on 27th February.
There may well be a basis for different treatment of the inshore industry from the deep-sea industry, but, as the hon. Member for North Fylde has pointed out, the cost effect on the inshore industry is in some ways more dramatic than that on the middle-water and deep-sea industries. Many inshore vessel owners are facing costs which have trebled rather than risen by 50 per cent. of 75 per cent. There


seems little justification for so arbitrary a distinction.
Many would agree with some of the things that the Minister said in his original statement. For example, he said:
In the end, the cost of catching fish will have to he recovered in the price ….".— [Official Report, 27th February 1975; Vol. 887, c. 206.]
Most fishermen would agree with that and would want that to be the basis of the industry. However, the housewife might be forgiven who formed the impression that in recent years the cost of fishing has been recovered in the price. One of the things that have disturbed many fishermen is that the price on the fishmonger's slab has escalated when the price that they are receiving on the quayside is not increasing but falling.
It is for that reason that I have sought to persuade the Minister to consider the whole question of fish distribution and fish marketing. That is an area in which some of the Government's money could be well and usefully spent. Money could be spent on a simple operation of research and discussion with the interested parties to establish where some of the money is going. There is no doubt that there is concern amongst the organisations which represent consumers and amongst those that represent the fishermen that fish prices to the purchaser in the fishmonger's retail shop do not seem to respond in the same way as prices on the quayside. That is a difference that is difficult to explain.
There are some disturbing signs that in this and other respects the Minister is not well advised. There are some disturbing indications, some of which have been mentioned already. The business of choosing a 40-foot limit is one indication. Secondly, there is the failure to renegotiate the Common Market terms to include a common fishing policy. There were clear indications at the beginning of the Government's period of office that there would be such renegotiation. That is another matter which gives rise to concern.
In my area there was the extraordinary announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that gill net fishing would be banned. That causes us to wonder whether the Minister is in control of the situation. Does he realise that his right hon. Friend's announcement affects white

fishing in an area for which the English Minister is responsible? I suspect that he is not aware of that. It is clear from parliamentary answers that the Secretary of State for Scotland has made no attempt to consult the English fishing interests on which he proposes to legislate by means of an order. That leaves the fishermen in my constituency very much concerned about whether the Minister is in control of the situation. They are concerned whether Scottish Ministers are not allowing their imperialist ambitions to get out of control. That is their fear, as it seems that Scottish Ministers propose to introduce orders without consultation which will affect the livelihood of people outside their normal area of jurisdiction.
There have been other matters—some arose before the Government's period of office began—which are still causing difficulty. The White Fish Authority has insufficient funds for training but the training opportunities scheme of the Department of Employment is still not allowed to make provision for share fishermen to benefit from it.
All these matters leave one wondering whether the advice is satisfactory on which decisions on public spending involving the industry are being made and whether the Minister is receiving the right sort of advice. That is the most charitable assumption to make. That is the one that I choose to adopt. The least charitable assumption is that a structural change is taking place. If that is so, the Minister will find that he is encouraging a substantial decline in the English inshore fishing industry. I do not suppose that to be the case, but the Minister must concede that it is an easy interpretation to put upon some of the things that are happening.
If it were the belief that the inshore fishing industry and the families of the fishermen involved could be set aside and allowed to decline the Minister should think again. He would create thereby unemployment in places where there is no alternative employment. Unemployment would arise of a kind which none of the conventional policies could alleviate. He would bring about a waste of the capital expenditure which has gone, for example, into grants for vessels and into grants to develop the inshore industry. Some of the things that have


been happening, such as the 40-ft. limit, lead one to suppose that the Ministry is not well advised or is not well disposed towards the inshore fishing industry. I hope that something can be done to allay that disturbing impression.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on having the good fortune and good sense to give the House the opportunity of debating this important subject.
On a more local note, representing part of Aberdeen, I am glad that the fishing industry is being debated in the House, because so much attention, rightly, has been devoted to the oil industry in recent months. It is worth reminding the Scottish Office and people in the northeast of Scotland that up to 20,000 persons in that area arc closely engaged in the fishing industry. Therefore, we must not allow their interests to be overshadowed by the more glamorous aspects of the oil industry.
There is no doubt that the fishing industry is undergoing an extremely serious time with grave problems—probably unparalleled in its recent history. These problems have many causes, some of which have been mentioned. The industry has had enormous increases in fuel costs from about £17 a ton in October 1973 to over £50 a ton in December 1974. There have been increases in costs of building, gear and wages, and there have been problems over quotas.
There have been considerable and novel problems caused by the arrival of the oil industry in the north-cast of Scotland. Those problems range from restricted areas in which traditional fishing vessels were allowed to operate and are now not allowed to operate—areas which will be increased as more pipelines crisscross the sea floor—to gear being damaged by things thrown overboard from oil supply vessels, and so on.
The industry has also suffered from the effect of low fish prices. In Aberdeen in the first two months of this year there was a decrease on the average price per hundredweight of 11·7 per cent. On the last figure for February the average price per hundredweight has suffered a drop of 18·5 per cent. That drop in price,

calamitous as it would be for the industry at any time, must be set against the fact that prices everywhere else are rising. Inflation is going ahead at 20 per cent. Therefore, the industry is being hit from both ends of the inflationary spectrum at once.
The Government, faced with this situation and after prompting from many sources, including myself and my hon. Friends, have given welcome financial support to the industry. I say that categorically. Equally categorically I must tell the Minister that that support does not go far enough. It is difficult to see how any vessel currently tied up because of the problems that I have listed will be caused to turn back to sea because of the Government's financial support. I do not believe that will come about, much as I should like to see it.
Whether that is right or wrong, we must all agree that the majority—probably all —of the problems currently facing the fishing industry will still be there when the scheme comes to an end in June. I therefore strongly urge the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office to set up machinery for continuing discussions to ensure the stability of the fishing industry on a more long-term basis than the mere six months' grace afforded by the scheme.
I understand that one of the Minister's hon. Friends at the Scottish Office announced last week that the Government had no intention of continuing the present system of support and that the argument advanced in support of that was the belief that prices of fish would rise and that, therefore, the industry would be able to find its own feet through that mechanism. If that were so nobody would be more pleased than the fishing industry. Nobody in the industry wants to be dependent upon Government aid. It is an unparalleled set of circumstances which has forced this situation upon the industry, and I do not know anybody in it who believes that soon enough in time we shall see a rise in fish prices so that the industry can put itself back on its own feet. I do not believe that the evidence available to us makes such a deduction possible.
Mention has been made of the dumping of foreign fish. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) quoted the astronomic amount of frozen


fish still in store in this country waiting to be distributed. To a large extent this is what is pulling down the price of fish, and it is no use the Government thinking that the price of fish will rise while there are these vast stocks ready to be unleashed, as it were, on the British public. France has now imposed a ban on such imports. The fact that she is no longer a market for the unloading of stocks means that we shall be even more vulnerable than we were to the importation of fish that would otherwise have gone to France.
I therefore strongly urge the Minister and the Government to consider the continuation of financial support, though not necessarily on the same lines as before. The Minister will, no doubt, know that the fishing industry did not altogether agree with the lines on which that support was given. I shall not go into that now. I merely say that there should be a continuation of support on a basis to be discussed with representatives of the industry. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, there must be a restriction on imports of frozen fish from non-EEC countries. I hope that we can get the support of the Minister to set up discussions at the earliest moment to consider these important aspects.
I now turn briefly to the question of the Common Market fisheries policy. I do not want to lay down in any detail tonight what the various branches of the industry feel they should have out of any renegotiation of the EEC fisheries policy. Various points have been made tonight by other hon. Members, but, no doubt, the industry itself will make quite clear to the Government what it feels should be done. There is to be an important meeting in Edinburgh next Monday at which various aspects of the United Kingdom industry are coming together, and I hope that very soon after that meeting the various branches will let the Government know what they think.
There must be some specific and definite commitment by the Government. before the referendum on the EEC, on what exclusive British rights will be absolutely guaranteed. I believe that it would be wrong for fishermen or members of any other section of the community to vote in the referendum solely on the narrow ground of how their own business or

industry will be affected. The voting should be on the basis of the broad and long-term national interest. None the less, however much I may not like it, the fact is that many fishermen have already said that unless they get guarantees they will vote against the United Kingdom staying in the EEC.
Various references have been made to what was said in Hull at the weekend. Perhaps I may read to the Minister a telegram that was sent to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—a telegram to which, incidentally, a reply has not been received. The telegram reads:
Scottish Trawlers' Federation demand that renegotiation of common fisheries policy on limits be regarded as essential matter for discussion in current negotiations regarding UK terms for remaining in EEC.
I also find it incredible that the Government did not regard this matter as important enough to negotiate at this early stage. If they had done so, the matter would, no doubt, have been settled.
The telegram goes on:
If this matter not resolved to satisfaction of industry before referendum, effects seen as catastrophic and industry's opposition to EEC membership likely to harden substantially.
I believe that the herring fishermen sent messages on even harder lines, saying that they would definitely vote against the EEC. So it is important to get some sort of commitment from the Government.
I know the difficulties of giving a commitment, and I regret that the date of the referendum has thrown another spanner into an already complicated works, but this commitment is necessary for the industry's future and also to secure the maximum support in the referendum for our staying in. There must be a commitment that, whatever happens, the negotiations on the EEC fisheries policy will produce the removal of the policy of full access by 1982, and modifications which will give maximum priority to our vessels in our own waters. Those two matters are vital if we are to take the industry with us.
I hope that the Minister will say something about the longer-term proposals for securing stability.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on


his good fortune in securing this debate on such an appropriate day. I want to deal with the problems of the fishing industry under the headings of rapidly escalating costs, the extinction of fish stocks and fishing limits.
The Government have recently announced plans for an operating subsidy for fishing boats. A few weeks ago the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to a Question from me, said that something was just around the corner. I said at the time that that was a reasonably fair answer, knowing that the fishermen of Argyll desperately wanted this kind of subsidy. But I did not know then that there would be a strict division between those who got the subsidy and those who did not. As the Under-Secretary must have known, most of the fishermen in my constituency will not get it.
Many hon. Members have referred to the arbitrary cut-off point of the subsidy. It is worse than arbitrary. Only boats of 40 ft. and longer will benefit, but there are particular reasons why most boats in the Firth of Clyde area are shorter than that, up to and including 39·9 ft.—because the byelaws provide that only boats of less than 40 ft. can fish in the three-mile limit. Therefore, the cut-off point positively militates against a fair deal.
Apart from boats wrongly being cut off from this subsidy, there is also a problem for boats engaged chiefly in shell fishing. Clearly the rationale—if one may use that word—of not giving the subsidy to shellfishing boats is that shellfish somehow are regarded as luxury foods and, therefore, clearly the gentlemen who fish for these luxury foods should not benefit from Government funds. However, I want to point out two things. First, in this day and age shellfish, over and above anything else, are not luxury foods. One thinks of the products of other primary producers and of fillet steak, for example, and even in fishing one thinks of halibut and turbot. One wonders why shellfish should be singled out for opprobrium as a luxury food.
Above all, one thinks of those who are carrying out this job. Even if the Government think that shellfish are a luxury food and that shellfishermen should not be paid subsidy, I would

remind the Government that the occupation of shellfishing is certainly not a luxury occupation and that those who carry it out have to work just as hard as any other branch of the fishing industry to earn a living.
I do not want to take up too much time in discussing the question of subsidies. I conclude my remarks about it by saying that the present Labour Government disappoint me. They disappoint all of my hon. Friends because the Government have shown themselves to be, above all, the party of the big battalions. The Labour Party is not prepared to consider the legitimate interests of the small man, be he the small man in the fishing industry or with a builder's business or whatever he is. It has been shown clearly that the Government just do not care. They have let themselves down very badly. The tenor of many of the preceding speeches was that the Government had sacrificed the support of virtually everyone in the fishing industry and will continue to do so until they mend their ways in relation to current policies.
On the question of subsidy, I should like to suggest that in any case we should take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) when he put forward the idea that perhaps a more obvious and rational way of subsidising fishing boats, and a way which would cover boats of all lengths quite easily, would be simply to give a rebate on fuel. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) mentioned the question of horticulture when talking in terms of the Ministry. If one could do it for fishing, one could clearly do it for the horticulture industry too. It would be simply a question of the owners of fishing boats going to the Government with the receipts they had for payment for fuel supplies and receiving subsidy on that basis. I cannot think of a simpler way of giving the fishing industry the help that it requires.
I want to move on quickly to consider the question of fishing limits. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles what scientific evidence he had for prognosticating that the herring shoals off the West Coast of Scotland were in imminent danger of extinction. Clearly, scientific evidence is


always bound to vary on such a question, but conversations that I have had with marine biological experts in my area suggest that very soon, by next season, there will not be any herring worth catching off the West Coast of Scotland if something is not done, and done not merely within the next few months, because we are talking in terms of days or weeks and not months.
The Government are taking a very dangerous responsibility if they are pretending that this matter can somehow be postponed until all sorts of discussions have taken place, perhaps until they have got mixed up with some new plan for a revised system of quotas, or perhaps until the talks at Geneva are accomplished and a 200-mile limit is fixed. We do not know how long that will take to bring into operation, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) pointed out. The need is urgent and I regret that there appears to be no recognition by the Government Front Bench of just how urgent it has become.
I wish primarily to discuss another matter which was touched upon in the debate—the renegotiations which were supposedly accomplished in Dublin. In this matter the Government have shown a total dereliction of their duty to the fishing industry not only of Scotland but of the United Kingdom generally. How appropriate it is that we should be discussing this matter just as the Cabinet is trying to persuade all Ministers to support the renegotiation. There can be no doubt that the Government's dereliction of duty has been absolute. They have pretended to renegotiate but they have done nothing to help the fishing industry or to change the common fisheries policy which was so wrongly supported by the last Conservative Government.
I and my hon. Friends hope that even at the eleventh hour the Government will change their view and not only go all out to secure a proper limit—we have suggested for the short term a 50-mile limit—but will ensure that the small fishermen as well as those who operate on a large scale get the support they require and deserve.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which could not have come at

a more appropriate time. As the representative of a Cornish constituency, I can well understand the Minister now feeling that this is a matter on which the representatives of the various Celtic fringes are united. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on initiating the debate. I wish to deal, only with the inshore sector.
We all welcome the assistance that was announced by the Minister on 27th February last. All fishermen, whether deep-sea or inshore, have been faced with significant increases in energy costs which have not been compensated for by increased quayside prices. The Minister specifically excluded vessels of less than 40 ft. from the aid scheme. Like many other hon. Members, I found that disappointing. Fishermen in my constituency based at Looe, Polperro, Downderry and Kingsand used language far stronger than anything I am permitted to use in this House. After all, their difficulties are just as great proportionately as the difficulties of those who operate boats in excess of 40 ft.
I asked a Question on this matter and the Minister of State told me earlier this month that the reason boats of less than 40 ft. in length are not eligible is because the arrangements announced on 27th February were aimed at avoiding the development of a serious structural situation. These considerations did not apply in respect of vessels under 40 ft. in length. This is quite illogical and inconsistent.
I hope that by outlining the situation in my constituency I can show that the structural dislocation that the Minister is anxious to avoid applies as much to the inshore fishing fleet, particularly that of Devon and Cornwall, as to the deep-sea vessels. In those two counties 90 per cent. of the vessels are less than 40 ft. in length. In Cornwall alone there are approximately 200 vessels. This means that about 180 boats fishing largely for mackerel but also for prime fish, such as plaice and sole, and shellfish, will not be eligible.
If I translate the position in Cornwall as a whole to my own area, it means that only six of our 40 vessels will be eligible. These 40 vessels provide direct employment for over 100 men. It is often estimated that about four to five times the number of people directly employed


in fishing are employed in the ancillary and subsidiary trades. I am speaking of an area of the country where alternative employment opportunities are limited. I ask the Minister, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider the position of this important sector of the inshore fishing industry for the following reasons. The cost of fuel for a day's fishing has increased threefold since November 1973. In addition, a limited number of boats under 40 ft. in length have greater engine power than those over 40 ft. and thus use correspondingly more fuel. These boats are fulfilling the same functions as boats over 40 ft. in length.
Rising operating costs have not been compensated by increased quayside prices obtained by fishermen. Many of the boats of approximately 36 feet in length based on Cornish ports have been built in the past few years with the assistance of grant aid from the Government through the White Fish Authority. It is inconsistent for the Government to help with capital investment in an industry but to turn their backs on that sector of the industry when there is a need for short-term assistance.
Another reason why I make these representations, although this is not directly applicable to fishing, is that South-East Cornwall is located within the South-West assisted area. By definition, unemployment tends to be higher than the national average in this area. Employment opportunities are, therefore, more limited. This is particularly the case at present.
Inshore fishing makes a significant contribution both directly and indirectly to the local economy. This is an important tourist area. Why? It is because places like Looe and Polperro are alive. They are not dead villages. They are not full of people who have second homes there. People go to see the fishing vessels coming in, to watch the catch being landed and the fishermen mending their nets.
I ask the Minister to reconsider his earlier decision. I respectfully remind him that on an earlier occasion the operating subsidy applied to vessels in excess of 35 foot in length. What is more, for vessels under that length a system of landing payments on the basis of weight was used. Some form of short-term

assistance should be forthcoming. At present it seems as though the Minister is of the view that only the larger vessels need help. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) pointed out that as representative of a deep sea port, this is not the case. The inshore people are just as much in need of this assistance.
I would make a short comment about the conservation of stocks and fishing limits. We are entering a crucial period for the fishing industry, particularly with the post-July 1975 period. It might be appropriate to suggest two possible courses of action. I preface this by emphasising the need for continuous consultation between the Government and all sections of the industry. My first proposal is that the limits should be extended, initially at least, to 50 miles. There seems to be general agreement on this. Second, there should be some control of industrial fishing. We have already seen stocks depleted in fishing areas around these islands. We in the West Country are anxious that this should not happen to us.
I wrote to the Minister on 11th November 1974 expressing concern over this possibility. It came as a surprise to us when he appeared to be taking a great deal of time in reaching a decision about banning beam trawling. Let me stress the current requirements of the inshore fishermen in the short term. In the long term, if we are to continue with a viable industry contributing to the national and local economy, it is essential quickly to work out a future programme for the industry.
The Government must not think that because fishermen from the West Country are not sailing up the River Thames as they did on an earlier occasion all is satisfactory. We in the West are keeping a close watch on the situation. I hope that the Government will respond in a favourable manner.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: So much of this debate has been focussed on fishing interests in Scotland and the north of England that I am most pleased to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks). You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the English Channel has got fish in it just as much as the


North Sea and the Atlantic. One thing that we have in common throughout the British Isles is the knowledge of the serious situation facing the fishing industry.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been put forward so well already. Instead I shall deal with some points that affect my constituency and the rest of Kent. The first has to do with the extraordinary decision to limit subsidies to boats of over 40 feet in length. This is quite incomprehensible.
I served on a Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which went round the country studying the proposals of the White Fish Authority. It does not make sense for that authority to give grants for building boats regardless of size and for the Government to say that grants will be given only for boats of more than 40 feet in length. In Kent there are 70 inshore vessels, and 53 of them are less than 40 feet in length. A number of them have to be drawn up on the beaches. There are small fishing fleets at Dungeness and Hythe and some vessels are using Folkestone. The men at those ports will have to give up fishing unless something is done for them.
Let us consider the social consequences if they cease to be fishermen and do not return to the trade. The lifeboats, which are so important in the south of England, are all manned by the fishermen on a voluntary basis. It is no good the Minister laughing. I know that the question of fishing on the South Coast is not considered to be as dramatic as it is in Scotland, but how will the lifeboats be manned if the fishermen go out of business?
The question of safety worries me considerably. Fishermen are going out at night trawling on their own in bad weather conditions. Anyone who has experience of fishing alone at night and of the consequences of warps getting caught up knows how dangerous it is, but men are being forced to do it because they cannot afford to carry on as they have done in the past.
Is the Minister surprised to know that in 1966 plaice was fetching £1·78p per stone in Folkestone auction market and that last year it was fetching only £1·50p? Plenty of examples have been given tonight of the increases in the cost of run-

ning fishing boats. The fishermen have given me figures, which I have checked, showing an over all increase in costs of 400 per cent. The price of a coil rope has increased from £8 to £18 in the last few years. The price of twine has increased from 30p to £1 a 1b. Steel wire has increased in cost by 300 per cent.
Much has been said about the import of fish. The Library has kindly provided me with a number of statistics on this matter. If the Minister will look at the Overseas Trade Statistics published under Class 031, he will see the amount of fish being imported. A good deal has been said about the effects of importing fish from the Common Market, but the biggest importation from any country last year was £15 million worth from Norway. Imports of fish total over £58 million. Here is an opportunity of making some savings on the balance of payments. Large quantities of fish are in store. It is hard to explain to fishermen in my constituency why they are getting £1·50 a stone for fish whereas in the shops in London it is nearly £1 a lb.
There is something seriously wrong about the distribution of fish. I sometimes wonder whether the system of auctioning fish is correct. Some years ago I had the honour of introducing a Private Member's Bill which made it illegal to carry out auction practices which did not give the benefit of the proper price to the seller. The time has come to consider the question of redistribution. I am glad to say that at weekends a number of people go to Folkestone market and buy fish retail. It is sold in quite small quantities.
It is pathetic to discover how little people know about fishing. The other day a fisherman told me that he had come in with a landing of fresh fish and one of the ladies from London refused to buy the herring because it did not have pink eyes. The fisherman told her that he would guarantee that if she kept it in store for a fortnight the eyes would go pink.
This debate has been most interesting. I hope the Minister will assure us that the nonsense about grants only for boats over 40 ft. in length will be stopped. I trust that the grants will continue for a sufficient time to put the industry back on its feet.

9.22 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I apologise for my late arrival in the debate owing to the fact that my aircraft from Scotland arrived late.
I wish to put three brief points to the Minister. This is a time when Scottish fishermen face a difficult situation. They face a record level of costs and a situation in which imports from foreign countries, such as Poland, are being dumped in the form of frozen fish and when the traditional fishing grounds are being fished out.
My three points are as follows. First, is it not wrong that this subsidy should be paid only to those with vessels of over 40 ft. in length? Surely many communities in Scotland with smaller fishing vessels should be catered for. Is it not the case that the temporary six months' subsidy will become payable only in July? Will the Government seriously consider making an interim payment since Scottish fishermen find themselves in great need at this stage?
Secondly, now that frozen fish is being dumped on the Scottish market from foreign countries, will the Government in safeguarding Scottish fishermen consider imposing a strong protective tariff against non-EEC countries?
Thirdly, will the Minister do everything in his power to encourage his colleagues to press as hard as possible at the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva for a 200-mile limit? This is a matter of the utmost importance. It is a matter which should have been high on the agenda in the renegotiation of the Common Market terms. How can Scottish fishermen be expected to vote in the referendum to stay in the Common Market if their traditional fishing grounds are not safeguarded? It is a tragedy to see the situation concerning the Mediterranean coasts, where the waters have been fished out because of lack of international supervision and human greed. I hope that that tragedy will not be repeated in the North Sea. I emphasise that the Minister must press hard for a 200-mile limit.
There is a degree of urgency in this matter and I hope that the Minister will do his best not only on behalf of the fishermen of Granton but also on behalf of

all those who enjoy sea fishing, and on behalf of future generations of fishermen in Scotland and, indeed, in Britain as a whole.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on being so fortunate in the Ballot and on initiating this debate, which has given us a useful opportunity to discuss the problems and the future of the fishing industry. From the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate the Minister of State can be in no doubt about the anxiety of hon. Members of different parties and from different parts of the United Kingdom about the present situation and what the future holds for the fishing industry.
We must consider both the industry's present difficulties and its future. I will deal with one or two matters raised by my hon. Friends about the economic situation. I will not go over all that has been said because the state of the industry is well known to the Minister.
Many hon. Members referred to the tremendous escalation in fuel costs and in the cost of nets with a large element of man-made fibre, another casualty of the increase in oil prices. The Scottish Trawlers Federation in a letter to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that in the three months up to 31st December 1974 boats fishing out of Aberdeen were incurring losses at the rate of £83 a day before depreciation. Losses were also incurred by smaller boats, though not to the same degree. That is a situation in which the industry cannot continue to operate profitably, and it is doubtful whether it will be able to survive.
At the same time, at the end of last year and in the first part of this year there was a fall in the price that the fishermen received, so that in face of rapidly escalating costs they had to cope with a falling financial return for their catches.
I am grateful for the help which the Government are giving to the industry. My only worry concerns the temporary nature of the help. In the first instance it is for only six months. I emphasise what hon. Members said. If at the end of that period the economic state of the


industry is no better than it is now, or is worse, I hope that the Government will not hesitate either to continue the scheme or to introduce a similar scheme on a long-term basis. The industry requires that assurance, and it would help if the Minister can give it tonight so that the industry knows where it stands.
I hope that this period of six months can be used for discussions with the industry on ways in which the scheme can be made permanent if the economic circumstances warrant it at the end of the period. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is "tuttutting" away in his seat. Perhaps he does not understand the serious state of the fishing industry. I assure him that in Scotland, and not so far from his constituency, the industry is going through a difficult period and is anxious not only about the present but about what will happen after the end of June. I am sorry that he, should show so little concern.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Strang): Come off it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friends the Members for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). and the hon. Members for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) and Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) all referred to help being given for boats of under 40 ft. The Government spoilt what might otherwise have been a good scheme by limiting its extent to boats of more than 40 ft. in length. I know the reasons for that, but for anything but a temporary scheme it would be better to have a stonage basis, which was the basis of the previous scheme, to help the smaller boats. I accept the administrative difficulties of introducing such a scheme on a stonage basis for a temporary period. Equally, I hope that if the scheme is extended into another scheme the possibility of having a scheme on a stonage basis for smaller ships will be considered. I should be grateful for the Minister's view on this point, because it is of genuine concern.
Hon. Members from all parties have been to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about the matter, and to find out why the measurement of 40 feet was used as the cut-off point. A number

of my colleagues have explained quite clearly that the boats' technical construction is the same as that of the bigger boats and they do the same kind of fishing. Many boats in my constituency are below 40 feet in length but they are fishing in identical grounds and travelling greater distances. Therefore, I do not believe that the cut-off point of 40 feet is necessarily sensible. I accept that there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, but why did not the Minister use the cutoff point of the old scheme of 35 feet?
I am not so naive as to think—here I answer the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson)—that there cannot be a cut-off point if there is not to be stonage payment, but I believe that 35 feet would be better. It would be more acceptable to the fishermen and better understood. The rate of subsidy for a boat over 40 feet long is, I believe, £5 a day, as opposed to nothing for a boat below that length. The subsidy will last for six months. It is a fair assumption that the boats may be fishing on average for four days a week for the six months. I am probably underestimating. That means that for similar boats of different lengths, fishing out of the same ports, for the same fish, in the same grounds, there will be a difference to the extent of £500. Five pounds a day does not sound a great deal, but over a period it makes a considerable difference.
We received a sympathetic hearing from the Minister's hon. Friend at the Scottish Office last week, but a clear understanding that he will do nothing. I beg the Minister even at this late stage to consider the matter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is not the situation made even more ridiculous by the fact that many of the boats are under the length covered by the order because of Government or Highlands Board regulations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It shows the unfortunate inflexibility which the Government have introduced into the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that point, even at this late stage.
The question of imports was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) the hon. Member for Kingston


upon Hull, West and others. The Government must pay particular attention to what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said. What fishermen do not understand is that we are members of a common market. We are members of the EEC. As a result of militant action by the French fishermen, their Government—within the EEC rules, so far as we know —managed to impose restrictions on the imports of fish into their country. How do we explain to our fishermen if the French can do it, why the British Government cannot do it as well?
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) referred to a speech in Edinburgh on Friday by Mr. Paul Tapscott, Chairman of Associated Fisheries. The Scotsman on Saturday said in its report of his speech:
At Hull earlier this week, 800 tons of fillets had been landed by one Polish vessel—the equivalent of a week's supply to that market".
That is the kind of upset our market is suffering as a result of imports. In the difficult situation facing the industry, the Government must pay urgent attention to the problem of imports, if only in the interests of fairness between the different fishing nations of the Common Market.
I turn to the more deep-seated questions of the future, which I shall deal with in two parts. I take up first what I regard as the interim problems, and particularly the problem faced by the Scottish herring industry and its campaign for a 50-mile limit pending the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. We should consider interim measures of conservation of fish stocks, because even if by a miracle in the next month we manage to reach agreement at the conference on a 200-mile limit it will not be introduced immediately. There may well be phasing arrangements, and policing will not be established overnight. Even if we reach agreement in the shortest possible time scale, other action will be needed in the interim in the interests of conservation of fish stocks.
I beg the Minister to have sympathy with what motivates the Scottish herring fishermen. It is certainly not selfishness or greed. It is simply the desire to maintain their livelihood and that of their children, and to make certain that what has been an important fishery is not fished

out and lost simply because we are waiting for a 200-mile limit which we hope will result in moreeffective conservation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked how urgent such an interim limit was, and whether it was necessary. I take the point made by a number of scientists that there is nothing magical about the 50-mile limit that would automatically preserve our herring. There arc breeding grounds outside that limit. But—and this is why I emphasise the temporary nature of what the Scottish fishermen are requesting—the hon. Gentleman should look at the figures of the catch. I am sure that the Government are examining the figures of the Scottish herring catch, comparing recent figures with those of a year ago. The catch in December 1974 was about a third down on that in December 1973.
I know that the figures fluctuate from year to year, but I believe that there is some significance in that. Whereas in 1974 the catch off the west coast in the area of the Minches up to 25th January was 13,991 tonnes, with a value of about £1·46 million, in the same period this year it was 11,716 tonnes, to a value of £940,000. Those figures show a definite downward trend. It is obviously because of that trend that the fishermen are worried.
The fishermen are also worried because of what they see. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has met some of them, as have other hon. Members. I believe the witness of their own eyes over the past 12 months, and particularly last summer. The size of the foreign fishing fleet off the Minch, outside our six-mile limit, had to be seen to be believed. The boats were numbered not in tens and scores but in hundreds.
The efforts of foreign fishermen are now much greater than for many years past. Our fishermen, who are practical people, speak from experience and do not exaggerate. They speak of what they have seen and experienced. Fishing runs in families and is an occupation passed down through the family. These men are the sons, nephews, grandsons and grandnephews of herring fishermen who have fished off the coasts of Scotland for generations. They have seen the fisheries of East Anglia, Yorkshire, Buchan and Shetland fished out. The herring fishing


industry is of great importance to the fishermen of Shetland, where substantial fish stocks are at risk.
In the light of their experience the herring fishermen in Scotland are justified in their fears that the last remaining native herring stock is being put at risk. Fishing effort is being diverted from other areas, partly because areas such as Buchan have been fished out. The fact that the fishing catch of Shetland is being reduced reflects the efforts made to achieve conservation elsewhere. That applies both to herring and to white fish.
The Icelandic agreement is to be welcomed with regard to conservation and cod fishing in the Faroes and Norway. However, as a result of the ad hoc arrangements, fishing is diverted to those areas where fishing is relatively free. That causes pressure in fishing off the northwest coast of Scotland, and is a source of worry to Scottish fishermen.
It is vital that there should be the maximum policing of our limited fish stocks. Having been responsible for fisheries protection measures in Scotland, I know the problems. During the last three years in office of the Conservative Government there was a considerable strengthening and modernisation of the fisheries protection fleet. The Under-Secretary smiles. I should like to smile too. My smile would be one of sadness, but not because we have a poorer or less effective fleet. The tragedy is that we are unable to man the ships.
Will the Government look at their employment policies in relation to the staffing of these vessels? I realise that there are problems with regard to the social contract and Government service. However, the surveillance of our fish stocks is a vital task, and it is important that we should offer proper conditions to those manning the ships. The conditions must be comparable with what can be earned in other sections of the seagoing profession and the oil industry. I believe that the situation could be alleviated if better financial conditions were offered to those manning these ships.
Before coming to the common fisheries policy, on which I wish to conclude my remarks, I want to ask the Minister to say precisely where the Government stand on the question of an interim 50-mile limit for which the Scottish herring fisher-

men are asking. The Minister and his colleagues have been very helpful and cooperative in meeting deputations to them from the industry and from hon. Members. On behalf of all those who have gone to see him and his colleagues, I wish to thank them for the way they have received us and listened to us.
We are reaching the stage where those in the industry want to know where the Government stand. They would like a firm answer. Are the Government prepared to act on the plea for a 50-mile limit, or is it their present inclination to reject it? If they are to reject it, there are doubtless good reasons. It may make more difficult the ultimate achievement of the 200-mile limit being discussed by the Law of the Sea Conference. But if they reject such proposals the Government owe it to the industry and to this House to say why. The fishing industry wants to know what alternative proposals the Government have in the event of their refusing this plea for a 50-mile limit for herring fishing. The industry wants to know what conservation measures the Government have for the interim period until the Law of the Sea Conference comes to a conclusion on a 200-mile limit.
Are the Government prepared to consider a temporary ban on herring fishing? The organisers of the campaign have said that they are prepared to consider a ban on all herring fishing for 12 months. Among members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission there has been talk of a two-month ban this summer. This is what impresses me about the claims of the herring fishermen. If they are not to get a 50-mile limit, they themselves are prepared to accept a total ban for a period. I know that there are problems of diversion of effort and to know how they are to gain a livelihood in that period. But it is a measure of the integrity of the industry that in the absence of a 50-mile limit it is prepared to see a ban on herring fishing pending the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): We have heard various suggestions tonight about what should be done. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government would advocate a ban and the imposition of a 50-mile limit. He is


making noises which suggest that the Opposition would be in favour of unilateral action on a ban and on a 50-mile limit. Will he say clearly whether he is suggesting that we should unilaterally impose a 50-mile limit at this stage, regardless of the other consequences?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course not. I am neither so naive nor so foolish as to suggest such a silly course of action—nor are the fishermen. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Opposition or the industry are considering unilateral action, he is quite wrong. Those in the industry are fishermen. They understand the position on the high seas. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the lobby of fishermen, he would know that they spoke in international terms about the need to get this agreed. In the cases of Iceland, the Faroes and Norway, ultimately there was international agreement.
It is international agreement that our fishermen seek. They seek it on the basis of a temporary agreement until the Law of the Sea Conference makes its decision. To suggest a ban on herring fishing unilaterally would be even more silly. What would be the use of our stopping fishing if the other nations came in to fish? But agreements have been reached internationally in relation to other areas. I hope that it may be possible for this limited area of the sea.
On behalf of a number of hon. Members in all parties, I wrote to the Minister at the Foreign Office who is conducting the negotiations asking him to let us know as soon as possible his decision about this. If the Minister of State is unable to give us an answer tonight, I hope he will be able to tell us fairly soon precisely where the Government stand on this important issue.
I come next to the question of what happens when, as we all hope, we get the 200-mile limit from the Law of the Sea Conference. I reiterate that we wish the Government well in their endeavours to achieve that limit in Geneva over the coming weeks. We hope that having achieved it we shall have it ratified fairly quickly thereafter. That begs the question of what happens to the common fisheries policy after we get the 200-mile

limit. That is a matter to which we should increasingly give our attention. We must consider where we stand on that during the weeks and months ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty tabled a number of useful Questions and elicited much useful information from the Government. It is helpful to consider the size of what I would call the Common Market fisheries pond —namely, the area in the 200-mile limit which would be applicable to the United Kingdom and to the other eight countries of the EEC. My hon. Friend received a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland which suggested that approximately 56 per cent. of the total common fishery pond would be within the 200-mile limit around the United Kingdom. In other words, 56 per cent. of that pond would be attributable to this country. That means, in fishing terms and in terms of fish stocks, that we would be making a massive contribution to the total fish resources of the European Economic Community. Given the size of that contribution, I believe it is essential that we obtain preference for the coastal States. I hope that the Government will seek to negotiate over the next few months so that we get real preference as in the original negotiations.
I remind the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) that we do not automatically revert to the common fisheries policy in 1982. I ask him to read again the text of the agreement when we went into the Common Market. All that is in question is a review by 1982 of the arrangements for the Common Market fisheries policy. One criterion which has to govern that review is the important matter of conservation. That is the topic that is to motivate the review. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as kindly and respectfully as I can, that I believe he is spreading scare stories when he says that it goes back to fishing off the beaches. It does not.
I believe in the principle of preference for the coastal States, the preference that was achieved in the agreement when we negotiated entry into the Common Market. Equally, as regards the review in 1982 and what happens on the 200-mile limit and the common fisheries policy, I hope we will make certain that we achieve a preference system for the coastal States.


It is true that by going out to the 200-mile limit we should lose a large measure of fishing effort from the non-EEC nations unless there were reciprical arrangements. That would be of particular help to the herring industry. In answer to some Questions on the herring industry, the figures that were given show that in 1972 the United Kingdom caught 149,000 metric tons and that the other countries of the EEC caught 143,000 metric tons. The non-EEC countries, such as the Faroes, Iceland, Norway, Poland and the USSR, caught a total of 238,000 metric tons. If that amount of effort for herring is removed, it will be a major achievement and a considerable help to our industry. At the moment the balance is roughly 50–50 between our fishermen and the fishermen of the other EEC countries. Obviously there is a very heavy effort by the fishing industries of the other Common Market countries within our area.
The same applies to white fish. In 1972 the United Kingdom caught 319,000 metric tons. The other EEC countries caught 144,000 metric tons and the countries outside the EEC which I have just mentioned caught the not so important total of 77,000 metric tons.
By having a 200-mile limit and losing some of the non-EEC countries, we increase our potential. But there will be a considerable measure of competition, because there will be substantial catches and fishing effort by other EEC countries. We are bound to see a diversion of our deep-sea effort which currently goes elsewhere. If it is unable to go elsewhere, it will come back to these waters and take up some of the vacuum created by non-EEC countries which have left.
That leads me to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) about industrial fishing. We must be much tougher in future in controlling international industrial fishing. It does not make sense to catch species of edible standards at such high rates when there are so many other trash species, such as the blue whiting

off Rockall and such places, available for industrial fishing.
The Government must state where they stand on renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. Whether the 200-mile limit will benefit this country depends on how the common fisheries policy is renegotiated. We are talking about a substantial industry which is most important to Scotland. Indeed, the value of the catch measures in tens of millions of pounds. We are also concerned with men. The industry offers a high degree of employment, and many communities are utterly dependent on it.
Therefore, I call upon the Government over the next few weeks to renegotiate the common fisheries policy in a way which gives preference to the United Kingdom as a coastal State. I ask them to give us answers on these matters over the next few weeks. If they do not give us the answers and obtain the kind of preference that our industry needs, we shall see militancy in the fishing industry. There is a real feeling of militancy amongst not only Scottish but English herring fishermen. They are not given to militancy, but they have seen militancy in other sectors of the British economy. They have seen it also in other countries—for example, France—in recent weeks.
I believe that the response of those in our fishing industry to the Government's policy on the Common Market will be coloured by the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. Fishermen are in doubt where they stand. They are worried and anxious about the future. I give fair warning to the Government that they are ready to be militant if militancy is necessary. At the moment their leaders are determined to be moderate. That moderation has been marked in the speeches today. However, unless the Government give answers to the questions that have been posed, unless they tell us where they stand on the question of the 50-mile limit and the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, once we get the 200-mile limit we shall not see anything like the same moderation as we have now.

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I am pleased to be able to reply to this debate, and I ask for the indulgence of the House in answering a number of issues which have been raised by hon. Members.
I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) for raising this debate and giving the House the opportunity, which it has from time to time, though some may say not often enough, to discuss matters of great concern to our fishing industry, which is the biggest of its kind in the European Community and which has enormous resources all round our coasts. It is important that from time to time the House should go into these matters in great detail.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on his Front Bench performance. He was probably spurred on by looking over his shoulder at the SNP Members who seem to have been making the running in the issues with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. Nevertheless, I hope that he will continue as Opposition spokesman on fishing for many years to come.
I am glad to welcome to the Government Front Bench my hon Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), Stirling, Falkirk and Grange-mouth (Mr. Ewing), and Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). It shows the interest that my Scottish colleagues have in the debate. They are here not only because of their ministerial responsibilities but because they are representatives of Scotland, and they are here to identify themselves with the problems of the industry.
I have been asked many questions, and I hope that interventions will be kept to the minimum.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), whose interest in the fishing industry is well known, on his initiative in holding a seminar in his constituency last week when leaders of the industry and of the workers and

people who are involved in fishing at all levels were able to make their contributions to the discussion.
My hon. Friend said that we rarely get the opportunity to debate fishing, and to some extent he is right, but I remind the House that there have been a number of occasions recently, in which I have been concerned personally, when we have been involved with matters affecting the fishing industry and on which the Government were prepared to take action.
It may be within the recollection of the House that in recent months we were faced with the problem of the trawler-free zone action taken by the Norwegian Minister for Fishing, when he threatened before the end of last year that he would recommend his Government to take unilateral action about setting up a trawler-free zone around the north of Norway. This involved my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and myself in meetings both here and in Oslo to avert that situation. I suppose one of the results of success in anything that we do as a Government is that very few people know that a problem has been overcome, but when success is not obtained we are told that we should do something about it.
There were a number of meetings which involved consultations with the Germans and the French. We met the Norwegians both here and in Oslo to settle the dispute. I think that the matter has been settled amicably and without undue harm to the fishing industry. I mention this because when matters are resolved amicably they rarely hit the headlines. A cod war was prevented, to say nothing of avoiding a worsening of relationships between our fishermen and Norwegian fishermen.
I was pleased on my visit to the Council of Agriculture Ministers at Brussels in December to make my maiden speech on the subject of fishing, because the matter of the relationship between German fishermen and Iceland was raised. I was able to say that we identified ourselves with some of those problems, although we recognise that our relationship with Iceland is pretty good.
The Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1974, the


White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order 1974 and the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1975 were other important aids at a crucial time for the industry. Under the last of these we could give £6 million a year in the form of 25 per cent. grants for new and improved vessels. That represented about £24 million and was a great help to the industry. Fifty per cent. loans are available towards the capital costs of vessels, and there is also the temporary financial aid to which I shall refer shortly.
The Opposition have the right to demand action, but we gave this new aid to the industry in the form of grants for new vessels and improvement because in the autumn of 1973 the previous Government saw that the expenditure provided for was running out. In June 1974 we lifted the moratorium imposed by the Conservative Government and made those grants available again.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I must ask the Minister to be fair. He said that the moratorium was imposed because funds ran out, but does he not acknowledge that the rate of building at the time was far above the capacity of the yards, that the moratorium had very little effect in terms of holding back fishermen's plans for building vessels and that it was only temporary?

Mr. Bishop: I note the word "temporary", which we may find useful in future. But instead of increasing the amount, which was the alternative to a moratorium, the previous Government decided to bring a sudden halt to building.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, we did not.

Mr. Bishop: That sort of stop-go policy was not in the interests of the industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman please answer my question—if not now, later? The industry's building was not halted, at least in the yards that I know. Any delay was due to the pressure of building in those yards at that time.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman must know that my point is that if the Government of the day say that grants are available for a certain period and then

fail to make more money availaible when the earmarked funds run out, that discourages the industry from building—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It went on building.

Mr. Bishop: I am not denying that, but the industry was gravely discouraged. Instead of the grants which had been available until then, no grants were available at all.

Mr. MacCormick: Would not the Minister agree that all this is totally irrelevant to the debate? There is no point in haggling about the money to build boats when there is no fish to catch.

Mr. Bishop: The Government have been attacked for not doing enough to help the industry. Most hon. Members have talked about the temporary financial aid to the industry, and there has been no mention of the grants made after the moratorium was lifted last June or of the money that we put into the fund to be available from the beginning of this year. We should not overlook this substantial aid, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House and by the industry. There is also the fact that in the Vote that we are discussing, whereas the provision in A6—"Other Assistance to the Fishing Industry"—was £80,000 for 1974–75, we are increasing that now by £70,000, making £150,000 available, apart from the other Vote with which we are concerned.
A great deal of huffing and puffing has gone on this evening about the financial aid we are giving to the industry. I can well appreciate the very sincere points that have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House in relation to this aid. The important fact is, however, that there were discussions between the authorities concerned before the announcement was made. The points that I want to draw to the attention of the House tonight are the reasons why the temporary financial aid was given.
I know that reference has been made tonight to the replies we have given to those who have asked about the basis for the aid at all. I want to quote from the reply to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West on 27th February, when we said:
Rising costs of running the fishing fleet and particularly increased costs of fuel have


not been matched by prices at the quay. Vessels are being taken out of fishing.
I went on to say:
Some restructuring of the fishing fleet is inevitable and right"—
I am reminded of the comments of Austin Laing at my hon. Friend's seminar last week when he made the point about inevitable changes which will come about in the structure of the industry. I continued:
but we must avoid radical contraction leading to permanent structural damage. In the end, the cost of catching fish will have to be recovered in the price; but time is needed for the adjustment to take place in an orderly way."—[Official Report, 27th February 1975; Vol. 887, c. 206.]
I do not think anyone will really say that that is an unreasonable policy.
I should like now to deal with some of the points which have arisen on the temporary financial aid to which I have referred. The length bands were selected after informal consultation with the industrial bodies as being most representative of vessel cost categories. The rates for each band were determined broadly on a proportionate basis relative to known cost structures. Any banding exercise of this type will inevitably produce anomalies. We believe that the groupings selected are both fair and reasonable. The 35 ft, to which some hon. Members have referred, was not a cut-off point in earlier schemes because boats of less than this length qualified on a stonage basis. But the fact remains that there must be some way of making limitations dependent on the amount of money which will be available.
I know the views of the Conservative Opposition and their dislike of subsidies of all kinds. I recall that earlier this evening there was strong pressure for the Government to reduce subsidies quite substantially. But we recognise that subsidies are important. One must take account of the particular problems of the industry concerned and decide what amount of money should be made available and how it can be applied in the most sensible and fair way.

Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman has said that discussions took place. Will he say with what sections of the inshore fishing industry he had discussions before the order was introduced?

Mr. Bishop: Beyond saying what I have already said, no. I do not have the information with me, but I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman about the consultations which have taken place. Consultations have taken place with the industry in order to make sure that the money was applied in the fairest way.
One Opposition Member has talked about helping the big battalions and not the small chaps. He deplored the fact that we give the grant to the 40-footers but not to the 39 ft. 9 in. boats. The difference between the big battalions and the small battalions is a matter of three inches. Such points have been made. It seems clear—we must come clean on this matter—that it really means that we either have to increase the amount of money available in order to extend the range down to the lower limits or we have to say that if no more money is available we shall take money from other sectors of the industry in order to help the smaller men.
I have had no indication from Opposition Members tonight about whether they think the Government are wrong because they have not put more money into the kitty for a restricted range of subsidies, or whether we should take money away from the big boats in order to help the smaller operators. I have had no guidance. It might have been helpful if someone had said something along those lines.

Mr. Beith: We have been as helpful as we could, while recognising that it is for the Government to decide how much is made available for the purpose. However, the scheme was not constructed in such a way that the money can now be redistributed. Surely it is up to the Minister to grade the assistance so that all sections of the industry benefit. Is it the intention that the restructuring should take place in such a way that more boats of less than 40 ft. than boats of more than that length are taken out of fishing?

Mr. Bishop: My reply to that is that we have had to take into account the amount of money we can make available, the problems of the industry and how the money can be distributed in the shortest possible time so that those in greatest need get it. As I said in my reply in February, we have sought to


avoid undue contraction in the industry and the severe distortions of structure which would have been very harmful.
The other factor which must be borne in mind, although this is not a fundamental aspect, is that, as Austin Laing said last weekend, there are bound to be changes in the structure of the industry as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference and the common fisheries policy. This will mean that we can thereby ensure that the temporary aid helps the industry at a vital time. It is backdated to January and continues until June and will give an important breathing space. This is a holding operation.

Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister saying that, having initially decided to introduce a scheme in which there was a cut-off point for boats of less than 40 ft., he is now prepared to review that scheme within the existing budget of £6 million-plus so that there is a gradual grading to take in all ranges of vessel?

Mr. Bishop: I do not think it is possible at this stage to make the kind of review suggested by the hon. Member. If we reduced the limit to 39 ft. 9 in. we would then be asked to reduce it to 39 ft. or even 25 ft., and we should be accused of being arbitrary and discriminating against what some hon. Members might claim to be important parts of the fishing industry.
Generally, the grant has been welcomed. We recognise the problems facing the industry—the higher costs for gear, fuel and so on—and it is part of the Government's policy that in the regulation of fuel costs and other overheads we have to do our best to keep inflation down and overcome the economic problems which face the country. There is a limit to the amount of aid which can be given. I notice on the Order Paper today that there are about five Early-Day Motions signed by Conservative Members calling for subsidy and financial support for a number of industries with which my Ministry is concerned. It is about time the Conservatives said that they were in favour of increased public expenditure so that these subsidies could be financed.

Mr. Costain: What is the sense of the White Fish Authority saying in its wisdom that it will give a subsidy to build a boat, the fishermen putting their money

into it and the Government then devising the limit of 40 ft. below which subsidy will not be paid?

Mr. Bishop: It does not follow that because the Government give one kind of grant to a particular part of the industry we should give other kinds of aid as well. Other forms of aid are available under the Industry Act for example. The Government help to provide basic essentials for the industry, but the operating costs and general support must be a matter for the industry itself.
Not only is time needed for adjustments to take place in an orderly way, but ultimately the cost of catching fish will have to be recovered in the price. It is not much good for Conservative Members to say that there is no such thing as cheap food any longer and that the housewife must pay a realistic price devoid of subsidies, and then to deplore the fact that the higher cost of fish must be a factor in overcoming these problems.
Let me deal now with the justification for the qualifying period. The purpose of this subsidy is not to deal with simple maintenance or to recompense for rising costs. It is intended to provide temporary help to those sectors of the fishing fleet which, because of excessive cost pressures, are becoming increasingly vulnerable the more they incur voyage costs to the point when there is a risk of permanent structural damage. The qualifying period is well within the historic days-at-sea pattern of the classes covered and should allow for short-term interruptions.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I make a short-term interruption? I do not think that this point was raised in the debate. Perhaps the Minister will deal with some of the points that were raised.

Mr. Bishop: I think it is relevant. I shall deal with some of the other points raised about inshore fishermen. We should be clear about the purpose of aid for the industry. Economic pressures could lead to permanent withdrawal. Many of the vessels of less than 40 ft. in length may not be affected to the same extent as the larger vessels.
I turn now to this question of what happens after 30th June when the subsidy comes to an end. The measure announced on 27th February is essentially


short-term. It is to enable the industry to adjust in a more orderly manner to future needs. As my right hon. Friend said in Hull on 20th December, the cost of catching fish must be recovered from the market. Unless the consumer is willing to accept this, a shortage of fish may result.
The market in fish and fish products at home and abroad is going through a difficult period. We are discussing the reasons for this and possible solutions with the Community and involved third countries. Our aim is that markets should be stabilised and able to ensure the catching industry a return commensurate with the cost and effort involved.
There is also the question of distributive prices and margins. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. We have kept in close touch with her Department on the question of minimum reserve prices and the relationship between first-hand prices at the quayside and those charged by the retailer.
The House must remember that a highly perishable commodity like fish is bound to show a considerable difference between the two price levels, to reflect handling, boxing, storage, transport, icing and so on, not to mention the cost of filleting, which more than doubles the cost of the raw product.
Hon. Members may like to know, if they did not hear the announcement today, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, has said that his Department is considering asking the Price Commission to undertake a study of prices and margins in the distribution of fish. We hope that an announcement will be made about this in the near future.
With regard to the increase in the minimum price, the Hull trawler owners are members of the Fish Producers' Organisation Limited which is recognised under the EEC regulations. Producer organisations such as this, which are set up on the initiative of the producers, are charged with the task of implementing the objectives of the common fisheries policy, which include stabilising the market as well as guaranteeing a fair

income to producer members. The fish producer organisations are expected to operate a market intervention system comprising minimum withdrawal prices below which their members' products will not be sold on the human consumption market.
The other questions with which I want to deal—

Mr. Gray: Mr. Grayrose—

Mr. Bishop: I have many points to deal with.

Mr. Gray: I initiated the debate, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way. Perhaps he is not too well; he is having a drink of water. He may have a temperature. I have never listened to such a droning lot of rubbish. When will the hon. Gentleman wake up and answer some of the points raised in this debate instead of reading a Civil Service brief which he obviously does not even understand? I have never listened to anything quite like this in my life. It is an utter disgrace. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should make an apology to the House for the disgraceful attempt which his representative has made in answering this debate. It is a lot of irrelevance. Practically none of the points raised in the debate have been answered. I ask the hon. Gentleman to have another drink of water, think again and give us some answers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to refer to what the Minister has said as rubbish. Perhaps he is steaming at 35 knots, but that does not make it rubbish. He is trying to answer every point. Perhaps some have not been raised which the Minister thinks are more important.

Mr. Gray: With permission—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —on a point of order, I presume.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is obvious that the Minister has no intention of trying to answer the points of a Scottish nature which were raised, may we ask that an Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office who is competent to deal with them be brought to the House to answer them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot at this stage say that the Minister will not deal with the points. He has not said that he is about to conclude. There is no time limit to the debate.

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If Opposition Members did not intervene so much, they would get answers to the questions which they have posed. Although the debate is not timed in the usual way, there are 17 more subjects to be debated and I am anxious not to delay matters unduly. I want to deal with the points which have been raised. Indeed, I have been doing that since I began to speak.
The question has been raised of the banning of herring fishing which was announced last week. We have recently withdrawn all licences for herring fishing in the North Sea and Skagerrak. The United Kingdom quota of 18,900 tons agreed within the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission for the year July 1974 to June 1975 has now been reached and all fishing must cease. Our share of the total allowable catch for this stock was based broadly on our historic catches over the past 10 years. All other nation members of the commission have quotas calculated on the same basis.
I appreciate that the closure of the quota will cause hardship to a number of fishermen but, as the commission made clear, the herring stocks of the North Sea are heavily taxed—this is an important point for those who care about conservation—and are in continuing need of protection against overfishing. It is vital in the longer-term interests of all fishermen to abide by the agreed quotas.
I wish to answer several supplementary points which arise from that regarding the reasons why the quota has been exhausted so quickly. The United Kingdom quota has been very close to the average North Sea herring catches over the past few years. We had every reason to hope that our 1974–75 quota would be sufficient to meet our needs, but the unexpectedly high catches last autumn meant that we have to call a halt in fishing in mid-November as the quota was by then nearly taken up. Fishing for the remainder—less than 1,000 tons —began on 1st February, and the quota has now been fully taken.
If it is asked why the quota was not larger, I can only say that the shares of total allowable catch of 488,000 tons for all member countries of NEAFC were calculated on the basis of individual nations' historic performances in this fishery, and the United Kingdom quota of 18,900 tons was close to recent levels of catch.
Several other questions have been raised about the administration of the quota in the United Kingdom. My officials are consulting the industry on how best to administer the quotas for cod, haddock, whitting, sole, plaice and herring caught in the waters round the United Kingdom. These quotas were agreed with in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and for 1975 the majority of the quotas are not greatly different from the catches in previous years. Where sacrifices have been made to conserve stocks, they have been made by all fishermen of all countries, and the national quotas have reflected these proportionate sacrifices in cases where, on the basis of international scientific advice, the commission has agreed that lower total catches are necessary to safeguard the stocks. There is no question of United Kingdom fishermen having been discriminated against.
I believe that the quotas are necessary as a conservation measure. In both the short and the long term, the only effective way in which stocks can be adequately safeguarded is by internationally-agreed quotas. I am sure that Opposition parties do not disagree with the idea of quotas, to ensure both fair fishing and conservation. Only in this way will the efforts of other nations be held in check. We are aware that the imposition of quotas is an irritation for the fishermen and can interfere with the making of fishing plans, but we are fortunate in that all quotas agreed so far correspond fairly well to the quantities we have been catching in these waters.
With regard to conservation and the danger to stocks, one matter which causes great concern to fishermen is the danger of the disappearance of valuable stocks of fishing off our shores. It is essential for the future well-being of our industry that these stocks are safeguarded. The situation has already gone much too far with North Sea herring, and the cutting back of fishing is necessary so that stocks


may be allowed to build up again. That is an important factor for the future.
Several hon. Members referred to industrial fishing, which I know causes widespread concern. Our fishermen are greatly angered by seeing other nations fishing large quantities for industrial purposes. To some extent such fishing can be justifiable where it is for industrial species and where there are adequate stocks of such species. We share the fishermen's concern, however, where that fishing is of valuable human consumption species or where considerable quantities of these species are taken as a by-catch.
Again, such a problem can be dealt with only by international agreement, and the United Kingdom Government have pressed hard, already with some success, for measures to combat overfishing of this kind. We shall continue to press, and I am glad to say that there seems to be an increasing awareness, even among countries which have industries dependent upon such fishing, of the strength of feeling generally on this issue. I am sure that the views which have been expressed in the debate will help in that direction.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised the question of fishery protection generally, and I have dealt with that. I assure him that we are fully seized of the need for adequate protection and will continue to keep the matter in mind.
The question has been raised whether other countries are keeping to the quotas which were agreed by the NEAFC earlier this year. The trouble with quotas is that no country's fishermen think that any other country is keeping to the rules. There is a temptation to be less than honest about catches once quotas are in force. Therefore, we and the other countries involved must take every possible step to ensure that the quotas are observed. There are bound to be difficulties in enforcing quotas, especially when they are first introduced, but I am sure that all Governments represented in NEAFC are very conscious of the importance of the quotas and will enforce them as fully as they are able. The Government have been very active in NEAFC in pressing for stronger enforcement measures, and we shall continue to press accordingly.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty asked whether we should ban certain types of nets. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken note of the point made on the order relating to gill nets. We shall certainly draw that matter to his attention.

Mr. Beith: Mr. Beithrose—

Mr. Bishop: I am sorry, but I must get on.
In regard to other countries involved in fishing I should like to deal with the French situation, which was a matter raised by several hon. Members. Under the EEC regulations member States can ask the Commission to introduce measures to deal with market disturbances. In response to requests by the French Government, the Commission made a regulation banning imports into France of frozen boneless fillets and tunny for processing. The ban was for a limited period only, until 17th April, but it will give the French industry a breathing space to adjust to competition from the countries concerned. The ban does not affect our own trade in those products, which is minimal.
When the Council of Ministers recently discussed protection for the Common Market it concluded that the banning of imports from third countries would not in the long term be the best means of market protection and that in some cases measures could be counterproductive. These are matters which we should bear in mind in future discussions.
With regard to the situation of Norwegian fishing and imports from Norway, while it is true that supplies of frozen fillets from Norway in 1974 exceeded the 1973 total by 2,000 tons, an increase of about 36 per cent., nevertheless supplies overall of frozen boneless fish from that country were 270 tons less in 1974 than in 1973. Together with representatives of the industry, we have been consulting informally with the Norwegian authorities in order to seek solutions to our difficulties and we are confident that the problem will be resolved in the very near future.
The question of the 50-mile limit was raised with the Norwegian Minister concerned earlier in the year. Norway has said that it will extend limits to 50 miles later this year. I assure the House that


discussions will take place in the near future to minimise the adverse effects of an extension to the United Kingdom industry. We have warned the Norwegians that any unilateral action which they take in this direction will be detrimental to the wider discussions which must take place at the Law of the Sea Conference and in regard to a common fisheries policy.

Mr. Clegg: Will the Minister explain the situation in regard to Polish fish imports, which I am told by the British Trawler Federation are on a large scale? What talks is the Ministry having about those imports?

Mr. Bishop: While I cannot say exactly what discussions are taking place with the Poles on this matter, I can say that we are bearing in mind the situation in regard to the Polish, Norwegian and Icelandic fishing within our waters and that we shall be taking such action as we can within the regulations to restrict it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West stressed the importance of the Law of the Sea Conference. This is a very important matter which has engaged the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Agriculture for some time. The House will note that the conference reconvened today in Geneva to discuss, among other matters, fishery limits.
Perhaps I can say a few words about British objectives at the conference. As I have said before, the United Kingdom Government's policy on fisheries is to support the general trend towards extended zones of 200 miles, provided that our fishery and other interests are adequately safeguarded. Our aim is to reach an agreement which will include the concept of a 200-mile zone, including fishing rights. We think that it would be wrong to decide now what to do if that aim is not achieved or if some States anticipate formal ratification procedure.
With regard to the possibility of any unilateral extension by the United Kingdom, we would not contemplate any unilateral action by the United Kingdom beyond the limit sanctioned by international law. There are good reasons for so deciding. First, it would be inconsistent with our past and present attitudes

to international law. It would gravely prejudice the prospects of the extension of limits at the Law of the Sea Conference. As we saw from the other side of the fence during the Icelandic dispute, other States may not observe such an extension, thus involving costly and counter-productive defensive expenditure. Conservation of stocks is better done by internationally-agreed quotas. Action is best decided in the light of the current session of the conference.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Minister wholly reject the plea of the Scottish herring fishermen for a temporary 50-mile limit, internationally agreed?

Mr. Bishop: We certainly do not reject any points of view put forward here or outside the House. The question is whether we would support the Scottish fishermen or the people who may be goaded on to some extent by the Scottish National Party.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East)rose—

Mr. Bishop: May I rephrase that by saying "on the initiative of the Scottish National Party"? I know that it has taken a leading rôle in the matter and has expressed the deep concern of the Scottish fishermen. It is not alone in doing that. We recognise the strong feelings that exist.
We do not believe that unilateral action would be helpful to our prospects. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns agrees with me on that. I say sincerely to the Scottish fishermen that we do not think that that kind of action would help their chances. But I assure them and all who represent them that we have their problems very much in mind and that we shall raise the matters involved continually at the conference table.

Mr. Henderson: I was surprised by the Minister's speaking of the Scottish National Party goading on the Scottish fishermen. If anything, the party has been trying to moderate their strong feelings about the need for action. I associate myself with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in asking whether the Government are prepared as a matter of urgency to negotiate a 50-mile limit for


herring quite separately from the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. It is on this issue that the Scottish herring fishermen wish for action, and wish to hear the answer. If the Government are not prepared to do that, what is the alternative? The situation is explosive in the herring industry in Scotland.

Mr. Bishop: These matters will be taken into account. I know that the 50-mile limit is strongly supported by fishermen in Scotland, and perhaps elsewhere. It is also supported by Norway, which has already threatened to take unilateral action. We feel, however, that it would be a retrograde step at this stage to take unilateral action. These are matters which will be discussed in the conferences with which we are concerned.
A move to a 50-mile limit now would not achieve the conservation which we and the industry seek. Even assuming that it was feasible to get that limit, we must remember the mobility of stocks and the situation at spawning grounds. These can be safeguarded only by measures such as the quota.
The common fisheries policy has been referred to by a number of hon. Members. The Government believe that the trend towards wider fishery limits will be confirmed following the conference. This will inevitably require changes in the CFP. The EEC Commission recognises this, and discussions with the rest of the Community have already begun. The House may rest assured that the Government regard the fishing industry as a major national economic interest and are aware of the vital local importance of the industry throughout the coastal areas of the United Kingdom.
I was asked whether we should have involved the common fisheries policy in the renegotiations and at Dublin. This is a separate matter. The Government accept the general line of the common fisheries policy in the present circumstances in view of the Treaty of Accession and the fact that the policy is to be reviewed in 1982.
It is now clear that the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference is likely to be general acceptance of the 200-mile limit. This will create a new situation, calling for modification of the CFP. We see these modifications as part of the continuing work of the Community, which

has to respond to changing world circumstances and to the changes which are taking place rapidly in the fishing industry.
It is surprising that the Conservative Opposition, who were responsible when in power for our entry to the EEC, now make demands and talk about the changes which should have taken place. Those points should have been raised by the Government of the day when they took the United Kingdom into the Community.
We have an important interest in the fishing industry. The Government hope to ensure that we safeguard these vital interests in the negotiations now taking place.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister referred to the part played by the previous Government in the EEC negotiations, in which I was involved. Does he realise that one of the reasons why this matter is urgent is that the Labour Government have chosen to hold a referendum in June and, therefore, the fishing industry wants to know where it stands by the time the referendum is held? It is the action of the Government which makes this an urgent matter.

Mr. Bishop: It may well be that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about some of the attitudes taken by the fishermen regarding their future in the EEC. This is a matter which will be debated in the next few months before the referendum takes place. Since fishing is so important to our country, much greater safeguards might have been included in the Treaty of Accession when the Conservative Party was in power.
I believe that I have answered most of the questions asked by both sides of the House. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] I give the assurance that the views which have been expressed will be taken very carefully into account. The Government recognise the importance of our fishing industry. We recognise that of all EEC member States the United Kingdom has the biggest fishing interests. It is our intention to do our utmost to safeguard the interests of all sections of the fishing industry during the Law of the Sea Conference, the negotiations on the common fisheries policy and other negotiations of interest to an industry which has an important rôle to play in providing food for our people.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL CONSUMERS' COUNCIL

10.48 p.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller: I rise with a sense of relief at being the third, not the seventeenth, person to initiate a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
In a fortnight's time we shall mourn the fourth birthday of the assassination of the original Consumer Council. That organisation, which was set up by the Conservative Government in 1963, was subsequently murdered by the same party on the grounds of economy. At least that was said to be the reason for its disposal, although the Consumer Council pointed out that the cost of its operations was equivalent to one old penny per year per head of the population.
The other grounds which were given in public why the Consumer Council was to disappear were that it had worked itself out of a job and that it had done so well in representing the consumer that it had stimulated more voluntary organisations to take on the jobs which it had itself done so successfully during the eight years of its existence. However, the destruction of the Consumer Council was unanimously lamented not only by the Press and by the women's organisations but by every organisation with any experience of consumer protection. The very organisations which were quoted as being capable of taking over the work of the Consumer Council immediately denied their ability for a variety of reasons to undertake this task.
Perhaps I might remind the House of the kind of topic that the council took up during the years of its existence. One of the first was its campaign on flammable nightwear for children. After many years in which there had been a long and tragic pattern of accidents to children wearing nightwear which caught fire easily, the campaign which the council set up led speedily to the introduction of standards to ensure that nightwear was safe from this hazard.
The council took up the problem of the provision of school uniforms and the poor quality of school uniforms provided in many schools and by many suppliers throughout the country. The council set off the campaign against resale price maintenance, and this subsequently led to legislation.
There was a whole range of subjects which are obvious as being of consumer interest. There was the matter of guarantees, which has been put right subsequently in legislation. Guarantees at that time were calculated to remove from the consumer the protection of the Sale of Goods Act if people were so unwise as to sign them. It was only by the constant pressure of the council that the Government eventually undertook to legislate to get rid of this abuse.
It was not only in these obvious areas that the council was active. It played many other parts during its life. It brought together a wide variety of interests to cover a tremendous range of topics of general concern to the public. It brought together industry. It brought together wholesale distributors. It brought together retailers and consumers in order to exchange views, to exchange knowledge and to ensure that the consumer had the opportunity of making his views known.
As a result, over the years more and more protective legislation came along and a greater understanding developed between all sides in consumer provision about the need for protection of the buyer of goods and services.
In addition, the council undertook a wide range of education—in schools, in teacher training colleges and amongst women's organisations throughout the country. During its lifetime it distributed more than 5 million pieces of literature far and wide, giving advice on many topics. I have one on the subject of toys, but there was a great variety of literature given away in post offices and in the voluntary organisations to inform people not only about their rights but about the quality of goods of various kinds which were available.
The council entered the field of battle on decimalisation, probably one of the most notable struggles which took place between consumer interests and the Government. Even today, I cannot help feeling that had the council's campaign for the new unit of money to be based on the old penny been successful, instead of, as was finally decided as the result of pressure from the Treasury, on the new 2½d equivalent, many of the inflationary problems in retail prices in recent years


might well have been minimised considerably.
The council also had an important part to play in keeping the Press and other organs of information advised about topical matters of consumer interest. It published a journal called Focus which was widely read not by the general public but by specialists in consumer matters, and through them a great deal of information went out to the general public.
At the same time the council was responsible for setting the pace in consumer protection right across the world. I stress that because it is of great importance. When the council was wound up it was the only international voice which Britain had on the international consumer scene. It was that voice which had initiated many consumer organisations in other countries. It introduced the Teltag market scheme for comparative labelling. I have with me a couple of examples. They showed how the performance of various goods could be measured, giving consumers some clue to what they could expect from the goods they were buying. The Teltag was the subject of years of preparation and years of negotiation with various parts of industry.
Overnight the council was destroyed. When the axe fell, the Teltag was in the early stages of its development and starting to be a great success. One of the immediate results was that the council and the many trade interests which had invested in the scheme were at their wits' end to know how to continue the service for the consumer. Although strenuous efforts were made both within the council and in industry at large, it was not possible to save the scheme. Like so much of the work which the council had done over the eight years of its life, the Teltag was wontonly thrown away by the actions of the Conservative Government.
There was another reason for the council being different from most other organisations. As far as I know it was the only organisation set up by the Government in which there were more women than men. Perhaps that is an appropriate point to make in International Women's Year. When I joined the council—I was a member of the

council for five of its eight years—it had a woman director and the 12 members were evenly divided between male and female. During the years when Lady Elliott was chairman and Miss Elizabeth Ackroyd was director, there was a majority of women. I hope no one feels that the council suffered because of that aberration on the Government's part.
When the decision had been made that the council was to go, when the shouting had died down and when the protests were over, the council produced the last issue of its annual report. The report for 1970 appropriately bore a black cover. It told the world of the work of the council during its lifetime. The chairman, Lord Donaldson, finished his statement in the reporting by saying:
I am convinced that the axing of the Consumer Council cannot mean the axing of what we have done or what we have started. Someday someone will have to invent a new, publicly financed body to promote and protect the consumer interest. And when they do I suspect it will cost more than the modest 1d per head of the population which the Council has cost the country.
I am pleased that we have at last had, as Lord Donaldson predicted, the first evidence of the setting up of a new consumer council. I welcome the appointment of the chairman. It is very satisfying to know that someone of independent mind and of broad outlook has been appointed to take the chair of this important council.
I have read with great interest the statement that Mr. Michael Young has made on his views about the way in which the new consumer council should proceed. I would have hoped that he might say a word or two in acknowledgment of the existence of his predecessor and of the preceding authority, which he omitted altogether from his statement. Nevertheless many of his views are worthy of serious consideration.
I disagree with Mr. Young's suggestion that the development of the consumer interest, as he calls it, is largely the result of inflation. I remind the House that the setting up of the original Consumer Council was nothing to do with inflation. It was the result of the submission of the Molony Committee's report to this House. The person responsible more than any other for the eventual setting up of the Consumer Council was Mr.


Michael Young by his founding of the Consumers Association. Therefore, it is well not to feel that the newly-formed council is merely a tool to beat inflation. I hope that it will be a long-term project and will have an effect long after the present inflationary spiral has been reduced to more manageable proportions.
Nevertheless, looking at the wide area to which Mr. Young referred in his recent statement, he appears to be undertaking a fairly daunting task. He envisages taking on almost every agency in the country on behalf of consumers. I ought to remind him that the various aspects that he has brought up in his statement will involve him in doing battle with local authorities at every level, with the whole of the National Health Service in its reorganised form and with the whole of trade and industry. He will find that he has bitten off a pretty sizeable lump of the national cake if he feels that this new council can adequately deal with all these subjects.
I regret that in the White Paper and in the statement made by Mr. Young there is no mention of any method of dealing with individual complaints. I realise that other agencies are doing that. However, it is worth remembering that the Consumer Council in its original form felt at the end of its life that not being able to undertake investigation of complaints made it somewhat remote from the people it was trying to serve. In fact, many who criticised it at the end of its existence did so on those grounds, although its original powers did not allow it to undertake that work.
I also regret that the new council will not have powers to disseminate its own literature or to be involved in educational work of the kind done by its predecessor.
On the other hand, I welcome the idea of the setting up of regional offices, because in my experience on the original Consumer Council, although on almost every possible occasion protests were made about the lack of regional activity, the Government were completely unwilling to allow anything of that kind to take place. If there is to be regional work, I wonder whether the cost is to come out of the budget of £30,000 which is being allowed to the new council. I wonder to what extent the work will be inhibited

by the fact that it may have to be restrained within this amount.
Another sphere in which I hope the new council will be able to help is in the encouragement of local authorities which are now having to hold back the suggested plans they have already made for developing local authority advice centres. Those which have already been established have been most successful. Many authorities are ready, willing and anxious to play their part in this area. I hope that the Government will encourage the council to press authorities to start up this activity as soon as funds become available to them.
The council has a vast job in trying to co-ordinate the myriad voices which at present represent the consumer in different fields. The Consumers Association has done its job as far as it is able to as a member organisation, and the Federation of Consumer Groups does its job too. Finally, there is the Weights and Measures Inspectorate or, under its new title, the Consumer Protection and Advice Service—I am always in difficulty about what it has changed itself into. They all do a good job in their own area, but there is a tremendous need at national level to bring together all the knowledge and experience of these various organisations, and I hope that apart from embarking upon its own activities the council will consider that it has a duty to act as the final spokesman in coordinating these various bodies.
I am pleased to see in the statement which the Minister made that a number of voluntary organisations have been called upon to submit nominees for the council. I hope that when the names are received they will be added to by others who are prepared to speak out freely and fearlessly in defence of consumer protection. One cynical view when the last council was being wound up was that that was being done because it had been too free and fearless in its condemnation of certain aspects of Government policies. I am not saying this in a party sense, because I think that if one looks back over its history it will be obvious that from its inception the Consumer Council spoke out against either Government when it felt that it should do so. In the latter stages of its life it was perhaps being a bit wayward according to the views of the then Government, but it is


important that if we are setting up a new non-statutory body of this kind it must be free, and seen to be free, to express the views of all the population and not just go along with the views of the Government.
I am well aware that since the Consumer Council was wound up many things have changed in the field of consumer protection. I am aware that the Director General of Fair Trading has entered the arena, that he is taking up a number of points about the dissemination of information, that he is watching over fair trading matters and that he has taken on board all the consumer credit legislation. Nevertheless there are still gaps which need to be filled by this new organisation.
Mr. Michael Young makes the point in his statement that the poor are doubly disadvantaged. I think that this is true, and I go back to what I said originally: that he is taking on most of the statutory bodies and many of the Government Departments if he tries to deal with the double disadvantages from which the poor suffer, particularly in the take-up of benefits.
It is worthy of note that the former Consumer Council was accused of being a middle-class organisation. I think that those who accused it in that way did not look carefully at the position of the council, because it represented all interests from the trade union and the cooperative organisation to the employer's organisation.
But there is no doubt that it is very difficult to get to and attract the people who most need consumer protection. In this area, the work which I look forward to seeing particularly is that in connection with the consultative committees of the nationalised industries. I remind the House that here again the earlier council spent a tremendous amount of time studying in detail defects in the nationalised industries' consultative services and suggested remedies, some of which I am pleased to see are starting to be implemented.
The Conservative manifesto of June 1970 said that the Consumer Council had proved an influential and powerful spokesman for the interests of the consumer. That made it all the more ironic when a few months later it was decided to wind it up. But that statement was

true and I hope that the new Council will act in exactly the same way as its predecessor.
As I said, in just two weeks it will be four years since the last council died. I feel that it is not too optimistic to hope that on that anniversary we shall know the names of the members of the council, so that it can start operating as soon as possible this year.

11.11 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) on her initiative in bringing this subject before the House. It is an opportunity which I welcome. I have expressed before, in Committee, the note we take of the hon. Lady's utterances on consumer protection because of her experience. I hope she will not take offence if I say that we have also heard her express her views about the termination of the Consumer Council in Grand Guignol terms, involving death, assassination and murder.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has allowed a political note to creep into what I had hoped would be a useful debate on consumer protection, but since she has done so I must point out that no Government had such a good record in introducing significant and comprehensive measures of consumer protection than the last Conservative Government, not only in Bills but in regulations and various initiatives. It ill behoves any hon. Member to criticise that Government—

Mrs. Millie Miller: I do not dispute the work which was done, but it would be difficult for the hon. Lady to give a better explanation than I did of the end of the previous body, simply because, as a member, I knew the ramifications of the debate between the Government and the council in its dying days.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I still would not use such colourful adjectives about its demise.
Initiatives on consumer protection have been slow to come from the present Government. I do not believe that their intentions are not good, but there initiatives so far seem to have followed the course we set. They have reintroduced measures which fell by the wayside because of the General Election, including a Bill on unit pricing, which was a


Private Member's measure under the previous Government. What I reject utterly is the hon. Lady's claim that the Consumer Council was axed because it was in some way criticising the Government. I cannot believe that any Government, Conservative or Labour, would axe such a body for such reasons, especially if it was effective.
I am sure that this will prove an interesting and welcome debate. I would add to the welcome that the hon. Lady has already given to the new National Consumers' Council my own by no means unqualified welcome. I have a number of reservations about the new body, not least the suspicion that anything rooted, as the NCC is, in a Labour Party manifesto has at least a political pedigree. We shall have to see whether it is a prisoner of its own heredity or whether it is, as its first chairman has claimed, born free.
I was disturbed to hear from the Secretary of State at Question Time today that she intends to make political appointments to this body. The right hon. Lady was careful to say that these political appointments would be balanced. That is fair enough. But why make political appointments at all?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the former Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, bent over backwards not to make political appointments in the case of the Office of Fair Trading. The Minister of State's mouth has fallen open. Perhaps he would like to contradict what I have said and give examples. If so, I should he delighted to give way. Apparently he does not wish to do so.
My second great reservation is about the apparently—one says "apparently" in the early days of a new organisation—extraneous nature of this new council in relation to the existing comprehensive structure for the protection of consumers, which it could well serve to distort. In claiming that the existing structure is comprehensive, I do not wish to imply that there are no longer any vacuums which need to be filled. Far from it. Indeed, it is because the NCC as proposed does nothing and can do nothing to fill the main vacuum that I express reservations and ask whether the money that is proposed to be spent on the NCC

could not be spent more effectively by building on to the existing structure.
The great and overriding need in consumer affairs is the provision of easily accessible advice, arbitration and education for consumers. It is no use legislating or regulating for consumers if they do not know of their rights or do not know how to pursue them. Despite what the hon. Lady the Member for Ilford, North has said, all too few local authorities have opened advice centres. That is partly because of economic stringency but partly—we must face this—through lack of intiative. My own district council in Gloucester has shown the initiative and has somehow found the money to open a housing advisory centre, which will be very useful indeed. I regret to say. however, that my county council has not shown similar initiative in opening consumer advisory centres.
We know that economic stringency is involved, but as the cost of running an average advice centre is about £20,000 a year I cannot help thinking that a great many advice centres could have been opened with the money which will be spent eventually on the NCC, and perhaps even more mobile advice centres.
I was rather disturbed to read in a debate in another place, which turned out to be a debate mainly on the NCC, that Baroness Phillips said:
There is an ominous sentence in a circular which has been sent out to local authorities about the rate support grant, in which it is suggested that there should he a deferment of consumer protection in the consumer protection field.
She asked:
Where are we going? On the one hand the Minister is saying that we need these throughout the land, and another Department —a rather feared Department, f would suggest —is telling local authorities that they must hold off."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 30th January 1975; Vol. 356, c. 600.]
I shall be interested to learn from the Minister of State what representations his Department made to the Department of the Environment before that advice was circulated.
Then there is the danger of a proliferation of consumer bodies causing confusion as to their rôle. We already have the statutory office of the Director General of Fair Trading. We have the British Standards Institution, with the very important consumer rôle that it fulfils. We


have the Offices of Trading Standards. As the hon. Lady said, they are changing names so often that one cannot keep up with them. We have also the very important voluntary bodies.
The hon. Lady spoke of the views of newspapers when the old Consumer Council was axed. The views which have been put forward in the newspapers about the new council are not all entirely unqualified in their support. In an article in the Financial Times of 3rd February this year, headed
A watchdog barking up the wrong tree",
Sandy McLachlan said this in speaking of perhaps the political background of the new proposed NCC:
The root of the confusion starts from that point"—
that is, the political point—
since the idea of an independent consumer pressure group—however welcome in theory—does not fit easily into the rest of the consumer protection framework so carefully constructed on a virtually non-political basis by recent Labour and Conservative administrations.
There is also a suspicion that a quite separate and non-statutory body may at best be a red herring.
He went on to say later in the article
Certainly the general public is likely to be confused since the NCC, which one would have thought might be the focal point for consumer complaints, will not want to get involved in the detail of individual problems.
That was the great drawback of the original Consumer Council and it is partly the drawback of the Office of Fair Trading which is deprived of a national network of consumer advice centres as envisaged by my right hon. and learned Friend from which to glean the very important grass roots information on which it can work. It is this lack of direct access for the consumer, which is not only needed in its own right but is a very important reservoir for research and information, which is also a great drawback for the NCC and which perhaps serves to emphasise its extraneous nature.
There is a report concerning its chairman in The Guardian of 30th March 1975. This is not a direct quotation of him and I hope that certain aspects of it are incorrect. The article is called "Crosscheck" and it says:
Michael Young believes that the consumer movement in this country have failed to meet

the needs and concern of the majority because it has been dominated by the middle classes who sometimes do not care, but more often do not know what oppresses those who are least able to fend for themselves.
I hope that hon. Members will not object if I say that I take some offence at those remarks. Repeatedly since I have been a Member of this House, in Committee and on the Floor of the House I have stressed that it is the poor, the less articulate and the less literate consumers who are most in need of protection.
In a pamphlet published by the Conservative Political Centre in 1972 and entitled "Square Deal for Consumers", of which I and a number of my hon. Friends were co-authors, we particularly recognised that point. As many hon. Members who have taken part in debates on consumer affairs will know, if this protection is not available to some consumers it is not because we do not know or care but is because communications have not been established with such people, because elementary consumer education has not been provided for them and simply because there is no direct access for them where local centres do not exist.
With the best will in the world I cannot see how the NCC will speak for consumers when it is not widely in touch with them except at second hand. Although I was much in sympathy with a great deal of what Michael Young had to say about the position of the consumer in relation to local authority departments —I found myself agreeing with practically every word he said—I am not sure how far he will be able to widen his remit to bring this within the ambit of the NCC, although I hope that he will be successful.
There is then the important question of the overlapping, or apparent overlapping, of the functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the NCC—for example, in promoting action to ensure that the voice of the consumer is heard, the voice that the NCC will not hear for itself, and making information available to consumers. The Director General of Fair Trading has a statutory duty to do all these things, certainly to investigate, report and recommend action. What happens when these two rôles conflict? Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to tell us when he replies.
The White Paper says that the Director General is too busy with monopolies, mergers and consumer credit. Does this imply that Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Trading Act are to be allowed to lapse, and will recommendations be made to the Government by the NCC and then referred to the CPAC for investigation? At national level there are the excellent voluntary organisations which will be campaigning for consumers as they have always done. Will there be any crossed lines here?
Hon. Members who hold regular constituency "surgeries"—not least the Minister of State when he was in opposition—are closer to the disadvantaged and inarticulate consumers who need the most help where there are no advice centres. That is why constituency issues are so often aired on the Floor of the House and why the persistence of right hon. and hon. Members has resulted in the legislation we have had so far. There is also the valuable advice that people receive from the various consumer organisations.
I welcome the function of the new agency of dealing with product safety. This is certainly necessary. I welcome, too, the fact that product safety has now been brought under the wing of the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, where it should have reposed for a long time. How is the NCC to collect information? How is it to make representations? What testing facilities will be available to it on its limited budget? I compare this with the rôle of the United States Product Safety Commission, which has an enormous budget and which, although it has no testing facilities, has money to spend on testing.
It is the extension of the United States Product Safety Commission which has made it a focal point for people such as the geneticists who discovered that there could be an genetic malfunction from the use of certain spray adhesives. They asked "To whom shall we go with this information?" They went to the commission, which was able to spend money on research and was then able to warn nationally and finally to ban the product.
We have been told that the NCC could make such recommendations. What will the Minister do when the NCC makes such recommendations since he does not

have the power to ban products? Will the power to ban be taken? If so, I shall be delighted to give such a step my wholehearted support. The hon. Lady mentioned flammability of children's nightwear. I remember the campaign carried on by the Consumer Council. We should accord credit to the Safety Sub-Committee of the British Standards Institution, which carried on this campaign, did the research and continued to promote the campaign successfully. That leads me to ask whether the problem of product safety could not have been handled more adequately by expanding the budget of the BSI, which is already experienced in this kind of work.
I am delighted that the NCC will have the function of liaising with the EEC on consumer protection affairs. There is a big vacuum here. It will be able to harmonise and discuss harmonisation of the EEC regulations concerning consumer health and safety of consumer products that we have not yet taken on board in this country. I think particularly of warnings of potentially hazardous household products by labelling.
No Government seem to have paid attention to that, although draft directives have been in existence in the EEC for many years. I hope that the NCC will recommend to the Government that they should adopt and adapt the principles in the excellent consultative document on consumer protection and information which we debated in an extremely irrelevant and inadequate fashion late at night. This was no fault of the Minister. As is so often the case with EEC legislation, the debate became a Second Reading debate on EEC legislation and was not in the interests of consumers.
I also welcome the new rôle accorded to the NCC with regard to the nationalised industry consumer councils. It should be a difficult job. The councils have shortcomings and they suffer from a shortage of facilities to do what consumers wish them to do. They are not sufficiently independent and are often criticised.
In a debate in the other place, attention was drawn to the rôle that a nationalised industry consumer council might have played in connection with the proposed 70 per cent. increase in charges for night storage heaters. It was not a nationalised industry consumer council which made representations. They were made and


pressed by the Opposition. There was the problem of a nationalised industry consumer council in respect of gas conversions. That operation could hardly be said to have been covered in glory. It was an occasion when consumers were irritated, put to extensive costs and exposed to considerable dangers on a number of occasions. Obviously, that could not be said to be a satisfactory state of affairs.
Then there are the difficulties of billing nationalised industry consumers, particularly with electricity bills. When consumers want to make inquiries about faults, they often have to go to an obscure office upstairs to be met by somebody different each time to explain their queries over and over again. When I have complained that pensioners find it difficult to walk upstairs to make such inquiries, I have been told that if they wish they can ask someone to come down from the query office, no doubt a very junior member of the staff, to deal with them.
These aspects and many others of the nationalised industry consumer councils are not satisfactory, and I hope that the NCC will exert its full influence in its rôle when investigating these matters. However, the Office of Fair Trading has not been backward in this respect. In a report on the new servicing code and independent arbitration scheme launched by the Electricity Council—the first such scheme for a nationalised industry—The Times of 14th March said:
The principal aim is to offer service on breakdowns in a reasonably quick time at a reasonable cost to meet reasonable demands, to resolve consumer complaints and to promote effective communications between the boards and consumers. The Director General of Fair Trading said he considered the willingness of Electricity Boards to submit to independent arbitration 'a most significant advance'.
I am sure that the House would agree with that. But this is an example of the Office of Fair Trading apparently fulfilling the same function as that proposed for the NCC.
I welcome the proposed rôle of the NCC regarding monitoring the advertising code. The Advertising Standards Authority is not unsuccessful in its job, but neither is it entirely independent. There are some very black spots in advertising—patent medicines, hearing

aids and the large composite advertisements which use such terms as "worth so much", which can hardly be disproved under the Trade Descriptions Act.
There is the question of cosmetics advertising. I beg the Minister, when he prods the NCC on this, to remember that a great deal of cosmetics advertising depends on the vanity of women and that half the women, including me, want to be deluded, but I respect the fact that half of them do not wish to be and that they should be protected as far as possible. But with regard to such extravagant claims in advertisements as that for a shampoo which says "You can have the loveliest, shiniest hair in the world if you use this shampoo", how many people who used it would complain that it had not produced those qualities for them?
There are the harmless over-claims of advertising which I would not want to see touched in which there is a great deal of pure entertainment value, particularly in beer advertisements. My favourite beer advertisement, which we do not see very often these days, is that in which a good-looking hero is rescuing a highly improbable damsel in distress from highly improbable dangers, the improbability of which is exceeded only by the claim for the beer—"It's Tankard which helps you excel; after one you do anything well". I shudder to think of the disappointment this must have caused in the one-in-a-million breast in which hope had been raised by the advertisement.
In consumer protection we too often hear of the wicked trader, and we cannot stress too strongly that the vast majority of traders provide valuable services and excellent goods. One of the worst areas of complaint which I hope the NCC will deal with is after-sales service, particularly of major domestic appliances and cars. The consumer is a captive caught by the fact that he has to buy the spares for the car which he has bought and has to pay the price charged. He must have repairs carried out which he has been told are necessary, whether or not he can positively find out whether they are necessary.
The Director General of Fair Trading has done a fine job in obtaining a number of voluntary agreements with the shoe trade, manufacturers of electrical appliances and motor traders. If these


voluntary agreements work, it will be by far the best way of solving these problems. But he will have to monitor them carefully, because if he does not do so inevitably and regrettably legislation will have to be introduced.
I hope that the initiative of the new Chairman of the NCC will lead him to look into the whole question of certain car insurance policies which are misleadingly described as comprehensive so that when a person is involved in an accident which is no fault of his and the owner of the other car is convicted at the magistrates' court he is told by his insurance company, because he has a comprehensive policy, "It is all right. We will reclaim it for you", and afterwards he finds that he has lost his no-claim bonus. It seems to me that this is an area that needs looking into.
Like the hon. Lady, I regret the fact that the NCC will have nothing to do with education. Like her, I wish that this education could take place in schools, so that we might see a whole new generation of consumers emerging with a clear idea of their rights and obligations and of how to pursue those rights. I was interested to read the new chairman's views on consumer interests and representation in companies. I have often thought that, certainly in the private sector, the interests of those who work in the companies and the interests of shareholders were supreme, but I should be interested to hear a shareholder stand up at the annual general meeting of such a company which was engaged in manufacturing consumer products and ask how many complaints had been received in the year and what was the nature of those complaints about the product. I should be interested to know what effect that could have in terms of an improvement in standards, not only in the work carried out by management but on the shop floor.
I hope that the new chairman, Mr. Young, will pursue this point and bear in mind the excellent consumer relations which exist between a number of private national supermarket chains, which have set up their own local consumer councils to consider the needs of their consumers and which produce specialist goods to meet those needs, because that sort of communication between trade and con-

sumer should be encouraged, prevention being a great deal better than cure.
I hope that the Minister will press for a new Supply of Services Bill to deal with exclusion clauses in services as soon as the Law Commission is ready to report, and I hope that the Law Commission will be ready to report before long.
I hope that the NCC will in no way cut across the rôle of the enforcement authorities. They are grossly understaffed and they have enormous burdens to carry. I wonder whether the money that is being used to finance the NCC would not have been better employed to replenish the staffs of the trading standards offices throughout the country, because they represent the consumers superbly.
Like the hon. Lady, I was concerned about the statement made by Michael Young as he sees his rôle in terms of price restraint. As the hon. Lady will know, the Molony Committee made it clear that pricing should have no part in consumer protection policy, which is to do with trading practices and not pricing. Mr. Young has set himself an enormous task —a task which is right outside his remit of consumer protection—in talking about incomes and profits and about the effect of profits and not wage restraint.
I was disturbed to read, in the Yorkshire Post of 10th February 1975— hope that he is not a political appointee —the following report of Mr. Young's remarks:
 'The consumer interest is in keeping prices down. The problem is how we might make it stick.' Mr. Young calls for income restraint —and promptly adds: I didn't say wage restraint. Those with the higher incomes ought to show the greatest restraint.' 
If I say that I detect a slightly political tinge in those words, I hope that the Minister of State will not disagree. I wonder whether he thinks that restraint has gone far enough in the middle income groups.
Finally, in qualifying my welcome to the NCC, in posing a number of questions as to its rôle and its likely value and effectiveness and in expressing doubts as to its chances of success in its appointed rôle, I would now like to say, without any qualification whatsoever, that I wish it and its new chairman every success. I hope that all my doubts and fears will


be proved wrong and that the NCC will provide another facet of consumer protection that will contribute to an ever-improving and more effective level of consumer protection.

11.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): Somewhere among that myriad of questions I almost detected a speech. It might save time if I answered the speech and ignored the questions. However, I have debated with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for a sufficient length of time to appreciate that I should not be allowed to get away with that.
I was glad that by the end of her speech the hon. Lady had talked herself into a happier mood about the National Consumers' Council. She showed a certain sourness which I do not normally associate with her, and I suspect that it was because she had detected a political pedigree in the origins of the NCC. In fairness, when the Office of Fair Trading and the Director General were established, speaking from the Box from which the hon. Lady spoke I made clear on behalf of the Labour Party that we honoured the creation of the OFT and that we would retain the Director General. Indeed, the Director General has been kind enough subsequently to say that that commitment by the Opposition helped him in deciding to take the post. I hope, therefore, that Michael Young will pay more attention to what the hon. Lady said at the end of her speech than to what she said at the beginning.
The hon. Lady spoke of political appointments and referred back to Question Time today. Ignoring the party debating points that inevitably arise on an occasion like this, I am sure that with a balanced body representing consumers' interests some members will have political opinions. They would be rather empty, wishy-washy characters if they did not have political views. It is, therefore, likely that the members will include people of known political views. The hon. Lady is welcome to put forward any names she may wish to consider. When we were in opposition the Minister responsible for consumer affairs asked his

political opponents to put forward names. In appointing councils both sides have tried to ensure a balance, so that the body was not a shadow-like body unrepresentative of public opinion.
The hon. Lady complained of several of Michael Young's utterances. I find that encouraging. There may be some things he has said that I would complain about. That means that he is the sort of person we want in the job. In Committee on the Fair Trading Bill the Under-Secretary of State was in favour of appointing a diplomat as Director General. I said then that diplomats had their places and there were times when they were appropriate but that it was also appropriate to have a person who could fight for things. The Director General is doing an excellent job. It is right that the head of an independent body acting on behalf of the consumer should feel free to express points of view which may offend the hon. Lady and which may offend me. Then I know that he feels independent of either party. I am sure the hon. Lady does not disagree with that proposition.
The hon. Lady said—with a degree of truculence—how glad she was that safety had eventually come under our wing. We were set up in March 1974 and took over safety on 1st October. When the Conservative Government were in power they had ample opportunity to give that responsibility to their Minister responsible for consumer affairs, but they did not do so.
The hon. Lady hoped that the NCC would be able to undertake tests on products. The NCC is independent. It will make up its own mind what it wants to do. If it wants to make tests, if it wants to commission outside consultants or if it wants access to Government laboratories, it is for the council to decide. It is an independent organisation which must make its own decisions. That does not necessarily mean that I think it would be sensible for the council to set up its own laboratories, which would be under-used, but it could use existing resources on, say, a contract basis if it thought it appropriate to do so.
We faced this problem in assessing our budget for the first year. Until we see the way the council wants to operate, we have had a stab at guessing at the figure.


As we see its work developing in the first year, we shall be able to decide its future requirements. The hon. Lady knows, since this is an interest which we both share, that I put high emphasis on the safety of goods. I should be only too happy to see further action. She knows from private conversations that my right hon. Friend and I are reviewing the machinery and policy on safety.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the National Consumers' Council. My hon. Friend referred to the assassination of the Consumer Council. This brought a slapped hand from the hon. Member for Gloucester, who preferred a rather coyer term, such as the "termination" or "demise" of that body. Nevertheless, the poor animal lay dead at the end. However, I shall not enter into a political discussion as to how that happened. Everybody knows that it was killed off allegedly to save £240,000.
My hon. Friend regretted the fact that individual complaints will not be dealt with by the NCC. We examined this matter, and there is a difference between being aware of individual complaints and dealing with them, as the hon. Member for Gloucester will discover in her role of trying to advise her party, as I have found, and indeed as I am sure Michael Young will discover for himself. If one deals with all the complaints that come one's way, one never has time to cope with the policy thinking. We must be sure that there is the facility for complaints to be dealt with. We must make sure that the nature of complaints is available to us all in our varying roles. But our job at the centre is to synthesise the information which is obtained and to turn that into policy by a change in the law, leading to additional protection, rather than to spend time dealing with matters that could be dealt with more effectively, and certainly more cheaply, at local level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North regretted that there was no power to disseminate literature and information. The reason why literature is not to be disseminated is that the OFT has this function, which rested with the Consumer Council, and in a situation of limited resources I am sure that hon. Members would not wish there to be any

duplication. The NCC is free to comment if it wishes to do so. Indeed, the NCC would be free, if necessary, to make recommendations.
The matter of consumer education is a question for the NCC. We put no limitation on its wider propagandist rôle on behalf of the consumer. We want to set up a completely independent body which can speak at national level. I sought to stress this point in opposition when we were dealing with the fair trading legislation. The producers, the CBI and the trade unions have gone down well-trodden paths into Whitehall; they are experienced lobbyists. There is no such lobbying experience on behalf of the consumer. We want to establish such a lobbying power.
The hon. Member for Gloucester will appreciate that lobbying is a matter not of occasional questions but of continuous daily discussion and argument with officials, sometimes of beating down barriers which have been erected over years of entrenched stonewalling against change.
As for the structure of the committee. I can inform the House that it will have about 15 members. I say "about" because the aim is to get a body which is as small as is reasonable so that it can get down to hard, detailed work instead of having general meetings every time it meets. The individual members will perhaps be able to head study teams to specialise in particular sectors. That is very much in line with Michael Young's thinking.
There will be regional committees, the Scottish, Welsh and Irish committees. We have gone for something which I recommended to the previous Government during the passage of the Fair Trading Act —the direct participation of what we have called the nominating bodies, existing independent consumer and women's organisations which will be allowed to put forward names. Those chosen will not be delegates from the nominating organisations, having to report back and get a mandate before they can decide anything. They will be there as individuals to express their individual viewpoints but drawing on their experience within those nominating bodies.
There will be five names chosen from the 10 nominating bodies. In addition the Secretary of State will appoint a


series of members, because there will be a delicate problem of ensuring a geographical and sex balance. As my hon. Friend said, if any committee is likely to consist predominantly of women members, this is probably the one. But that does not preclude men from membership, and I hope that quite a number of able men will take part in the committee's work.
There is also a matter of age balance. We want people who can speak for the elderly, the deprived and the young consumer. It is a difficult job, when we are thinking of only 15 members, to draw together names. If the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester has any names that she would like us to consider, without commitment, I shall gladly consider them, particularly if she can think of a geographic spread. But I should like to receive them as quickly as possible. We want as best we can to balance all these factors in a small group of people.
The secretariat will probably consist of about two dozen people, headed by a director and deputy director. Advertisements have now been placed for the posts.
The remit is wide. The council can choose its own issues, including issues going way beyond the responsibilities of the Office of Fair Trading. The hon. Lady has read Michael Young's Press statement and will realise that he takes a far wider view of consumerism than many people in this country do. It is nearer to the Nader view that almost anything that touches the consumer is consumerism.
We are not imposing unnecessary limitations on the council. We shall ask it to help us in certain respects, the nationalised industries being one instance. I stressed during the passage of the Fair Trading Act that the existing structures needed reassessing. First, many of them are a quarter of a century old. When a new department is taking over these responsibilities it is as well, as happens with a firm taking over a new branch, to look at the operational efficiency of the units for which it is assuming responsibility.
Secondly, they will now operate against a somewhat different background from that of their first 25 years, because we are gradually—more slowly than we

would wish—spreading a network of consumer advice centres. There are about 50, with more to come. I am opening one on Wednesday. These centres create a new dimension in that it is inevitable and desirable that they will become a point of first contact for the consumer.
I want consumers to feel that if they have a complaint against an electricity board they can go straight to the advice centre and do not have to look up a list on a board and find the address of a local representative of a consultative council. Consumers should be able to go to the advice centre in the same way as they would go to a private firm with a complaint about an electrical appliance. Therefore, we are now playing a slightly different game. We are establishing a more methodical system of first contact over a wide range of consumer operations.
In that context there could be an inefficient overlap with the working of the old consumer councils, which had to operate without such obvious points of contact. We hope, therefore, that for the sake of efficiency we may be able to operate the system more closely. I want a thorough review of the consumer councils to take place. A lot of money is being spent. It might well be spent in a different way within the consumer structure which we are evolving.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I should like the Minister to answer my direct question about the passage in the Department of the Environment's circular on the rate support grant, specifically regarding the cutting back of expenditure on consumer protection. What representations has the Department made?

Mr. Williams: The document says "no significant increase". There should be no cutting back. The hon. Lady demands greater expenditure by the local authorities, while the Government say that there should be no significant increase. The hon. Lady says that we are not doing enough. She must want a significant increase. She must bear in mind the complaints that the Government receive from her right hon. and hon. colleagues that rates are rising too rapidly. The two points of view seem to be incompatible.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I did not say that. I said that the money being made available to the NCC could well provide a


number of centres in cities which would not otherwise be provided.

Mr. Williams: The money might provide approximately 10 centres. Its rôle might be to establish centres which might otherwise be delayed. It is a question of balance between the local and national machinery. I believe that both have their place. I stand by our priorities. The hon. Lady is free to continue to disagree. I say that genuinely and not in any patronising way. We have followed the correct course in establishing a partisan voice on behalf of the consumer.
This organisation will not be serving in the rôle of the existing independent bodies. We want it to be free to criticise Government, local government and industry. It will be free to speak in any way it sees fit on behalf of the consumer and to campaign as it sees fit. If it does this job, even if my Department is at the wrong end of the criticisms, I shall feel that we have added something worth while to the machinery of consumer protection.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PAY AND CONDITIONS

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My main purpose in initiating this debate under Class IX of the Estimates is to highlight the manpower crisis which I believe is now crippling the efficiency and the effectiveness of Britain's police service.
Britain's police forces are in many cases undermanned, overworked and underpaid. It might be said that the thin blue line is not simply getting thinner. In some areas it is wasting away almost to vanishing point and certainly to vanquishing point, since the chronic manpower shortage is causing the police to be defeated on many fronts in their continuing war against crime.
The only constructive way of beating the police manpower deficiency is by improving the pay and conditions of policemen. I shall make some suggestions on this in a moment, but I hope that the House will bear with me if I first give one or two figures in order to outline the dimensions of the undermanning problem.
Virtually every police force in the country is under establishment strength. Against an establishment for England and Wales of 115,000, the actual police strength is 101,000. It is worrying enough to know that the official figures themselves show that we are 14,000 policemen short, but the position is much worse than the official statistics indicate. These establishment figures must be treated with considerable scepticism, because they are determined somewhat arbitrarily by the Home Office largely on the basis of recruitment possibilities rather than on true police requirements. As a result, most senior police officers regard the present establishment levels as unrealistic.
In a paper presented to the autumn conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire calculated that nearly 125,000 policemen were required for adequate everyday policing, and his is by no means the highest assessment. It is no part of my case to argue the need for an excessive number of policemen, but I think it is right to be suspicious of the Home Office establishment figures and to say that the true position is that we are short of at least 20,000 policemen in England and Wales.
If the police manpower deficiency seems parlous when looked at on a national basis, it appears positively dangerous when studied in the conurbations, especially in London, where there are now 800 fewer policemen than there were in 1920, even though the crime rate is 20 times higher. Today the Metropolitan Police are 5,500 officers short of their establishment strength of 26,500.
This 21 per cent. manpower shortage in the capital is already causing a breakdown in the ability of the Metropolitan Police to cope adequately with most categories of crime. In any one day in London some 180 burglaries are committed, and so also are some 335 thefts of and from motor vehicles. The police are so undermanned and overworked that they can spend only a maximum of two or three hours investigating each of these crimes, with the result that the criminals, most of whom are thought to be juveniles, have a nine-out-of-ten chance of going undetected.
In other categories of crime the burden being carried by Metropolitan Police


officers is no less intolerable. Despite the invaluable back-up work being done by civilians, two-thirds of Flying Squad officers are working more than 99 hours of overtime a month, and some officers are doing 120 hours. In the Fraud Squad the overtime figures are even higher. On top of their case loads, every member of the Metropolitan Police force has to be prepared to cope with the 1,500 bomb alarm calls each month, of which nearly 700 are made in good faith and all of which have to be taken seriously.
Another major cause of pressure on the police is the numerous political demonstrations on Saturdays or Sundays. Sir Robert Mark has said some strong words about these today, and I agree with his comments about "derisory sentences". But the impact on manpower of these demonstrations is such that many Metropolitan Police officers are called up for weekend duty on seven weekends out of eight.
If the policeman is prepared to put up with this continuous disruption of his weekend leave, his wife may not be so tolerant. Certainly the manpower shortage in the Metropolitan Police force puts grave strains on a policeman's family life, and this is a major factor in the high wastage rate.
The wastage rate in the Metropolitan Police deserves a moment or two of close analysis. The year 1973 saw the worst wastage in 18 years, with 1,627 officers leaving the force, despite a substantial pay increase and a higher rent allowance. In 1974 the wastage figure was slightly lower, with 1,459 officers leaving the force, the reduction being due perhaps to the introduction of the London weighting allowance of £201 per annum. However, it is worth noting that in the period from 1st January 1973 to 31st December 1974, 423 of the officers leaving the Metropolitan Police transferred to other forces, principally to areas like Dorset, Hampshire, Lincolnshire or the Thames Valley and Devon and Cornwall, where the policeman's lot is a more rural and, perhaps, a happier one.
The most important and depressing point in these wastage figures is that they exceeded comfortably the figure of incoming recruits. In the two years 1973 and 1974 the Metropolitan Police suffered a net loss of 768 officers. During the

same period the crime rate rose substantially, with indictable crimes increasing by 16 per cent. to more than 400,000 offences.
The picture of high wastage and low recruitment against a background of rising crime traps the force in a vicious circle. The more that wastage increases, the more onerous and unpleasant becomes the job for those who stay. That in turn leads to inadequate recruitment, further wastage and an even more impossible workload for those who still serve in the force. Unless the manpower drift is reversed, we shall soon be approaching a humiliating defeat in London's battle against crime.
It is a remarkable tribute to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Robert Mark, and to his men that despite the shortage of manpower the morale of the Metropolitan Police has been kept at a high level and that the specialist squads have achieved several successes, such as a reduction in the rate of bank robberies and a falling-off in the rate of muggings. However, we shall be living in a fool's paradise if we attach too much importance to short-term tactical triumphs and neglect the steady deterioration in the London crime situation caused by the manpower shortage.
I have discussed the problems of the Metropolitan Police at some length because they illustrate most dramatically the disturbing nature of the manpower shortage. Although some of the London problems are special, the general London picture is far from unique. Throughout the country the manpower shortage is changing the fundamental nature of police work. A few years ago the first priority of any police force was the prevention of crime. That preventive rôle is now being whittled away. Those most effective units of police work, the copper who knew his beat or the detective who knew his "manor" are fast becoming anachronisms. Those men are scarce on the ground and are becoming scarcer. London now has only three policemen for every square mile. In cities such as Leeds and Birmingham the police are stretched even more thinly.
Instead of preventing crime the police have been forced, largely by manpower difficulties, to react to crime only after it has been committed. This change to "fire brigade" policing, as it is known, is a


change for the worse. This deterioration in the prevention of crime will continue unless the Government of the day can be persuaded to exercise their political will in favour of reallocating the resources of the State to improve the police manpower situation.
The first priority in overcoming the manpower situation is to pay all policemen a basic wage which compares reasonably well with other occupations. This does not happen at the moment. The basic initial pay of a constable is around £36 a week. That basic minimum figure is far too low, especially in view of the responsibilities taken on by a constable. That view appears to have been shared by the Seventh Report of the Expenditure Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Lewis), which reported in July last year.
The Committee made the interesting suggestion that a constable's pay might be linked with the pay of an average industrial employee. At the time the Committee reported, that average with £46 a week. It is now well over £50 a week. These linkage matters are under consideration by the current comprehensive police pay review, but certainly it is right to say that there is a strong feeling amongst the police themselves that the basic floor of the constable's pay is too low even though overtime rates may push up gross earnings to an acceptable level.
Overtime earnings are quite irrelevant in attracting recruits because the recruit or potential recruit knows nothing about such frings benefits as boot allowances and rent allowances, and probably less above overtime rates. All he may consider is the basic rate of pay, and that probably is not good enough to attract new men and women into the force.
For the officers already in the force, overtime is inevitably something of a hit-and-miss affair depending upon the force in which they serve. I urge the Government is give priority to tackling the problem of improving the constable's basic rate. That is the fundamental unit of police pay on which the structure of other ranks' pay can be built. Improving the basic wage is far more important than tinkering with overtime rates or fringe benefits.
Next, I should like to say a word about how overtime rates affect the ranks of

superintendent and chief superintendent. In the police service overtime payments are made only to the federated ranks—namely, the ranks between constable and chief inspector. As a result many superintendents have discovered, on promotion to their new rank, that their gross earnings have reduced by as much as £1,000 or £1,500 a year from what they were earning in the lower rank of chief inspector. That means that a superintendent has a real problem about the erosion of differentials. I doubt whether there is any differential problem more worthy of sympathetic attention than that of the superintendents of police—the operational high command of the police service.
I am told that some chief inspectors now coming up before promotion boards are seriously asked the question "Can you afford to be promoted to superintendent?" That is a sad indication of how the differential rates have gone astray.
These differential problems can get worse when a superintendent or chief superintendent takes charge of a major incident such as a murder hunt or a rail disaster. In these circumstances the superintendent or chief superintendent in charge, being a non-overtime grade, will be overtaken subsequently in earnings by many of his subordinates.
To illustrate the point, I should like to give the House some figures of gross earnings of police officers currently engaged on the Lesley Whittle murder case. For the 28 day period 9th February to 9th March, the pay of the detective chief superintendent in charge of the case was £503 and the pay of his deputy, a detective superintendent, was £434. These ranks are, of course, non-overtime grades. But in the federated ranks, where overtime rates are paid, the gross earnings during that period were very much greater. For example, during the same 28-day period, on the same murder hunt, a detective chief inspector was paid £695, one detective inspector was paid £782, another detective inspector was paid £699, several detective sergeants were paid between £500 and £540 and several detective constables were paid between £440 and £465.
I should like to make it clear that I am not for one moment suggesting that those policemen did not deserve their overtime. On the contrary, I am sure


that they deserved it many times over. But what I am saying is that, when a constable earns more in a month than a superintendent or when an inspector earns £70 per week more than his chief superintendent who is in charge of the case, the overtime differential problem has got ludicrously out of control and must be remedied by replacing the present overtime rates by better basic rates of pay for all ranks. This is also the main way of attracting men of good quality into the police service and persuading them to stay in it for life.
I turn now to police housing. The offer of a police house should be a big attraction for recruits, and indeed it is, but it can also be a disincentive for a man in a police house to stay his full term in the force if he knows that he will be out in the cold at 55 years of age without a home of his own.
If we are to stop this big problem of wastage in the police, the most effective step that could be taken, other than increasing the basic pay, is to introduce a scheme making it easier for police officers to buy their own homes. I am thinking in terms of 100 per cent. mortgages at concessionary interest rates. Such schemes are already run by the big banks for their employees. I do not see why the Home Office should not introduce a similar scheme for police officers, particularly in areas such as London where they are most needed. I also understand that the Greater London Council is introducing some form of concessionary mortgage scheme for London's firemen, so that it would not be such a revolutionary step to offer a similar concession to London's policemen.
After talking to a number of police officers from the Commissioner downwards, I am certain that a concessionary mortgage scheme for Metropolitan Police officers would do more than anything else to halt the wastage of manpower and the drift of trained officers to other forces. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this idea and be able to overrule the mandarins of the Treasury when it comes to arguing about it.
I turn now to recruitment. According to the Expenditure Committee's Report to which I referred earlier, only £628,000 out of a total police expenditure in

England and Wales of £521 million was spent on advertising for recruits. The Estimate shows that in London only £170,000 of the Metropolitan Police budget of over £170 million was spent on recruiting advertising. When I reflect that a small advertising campaign, such as the £10,000 spent on advertising for special constables in the Metropolitan Police, managed to produce an increase of 30 per cent., I doubt whether we are doing enough to advertise recruiting for our police. I suggest that more money should be allocated to this purpose.
I have said a lot about money tonight but I recognise that the police service has much more to it than financial rewards. Sir Robert Mark put this thought very well in a recent interview published in the Listener, when he said:
It is not just a question of getting the material rewards right. We can only attract the kind of people we want by raising our reputation for integrity and effectiveness.
That is right. The police service must have both good morals and good morale. In this country we are remarkably lucky on both counts. We are lucky, too, in the general high quality of service that we receive from our police, but the fact that so many of our policemen are dedicated to the concept of service and duty partly out of a sense of vocation is no reason why we should exploit the vocation by giving the police unsatisfactory pay and conditions.
Finally, it may be argued that in presenting the case for easing the police manpower crisis I have asked for the implementation of certain policies which will mean increased public expenditure. When the inevitable cry goes up "Can we afford it?", my reply must be "But can we afford not to have an adequate police service?" Our society today is suffering from all kinds of internal strains, of which the alarming rise in juvenile crime and the terrifying growth of terrorist activity are just two examples. These conditions require an increasingly effective police service.
I believe that the police service is slipping backwards and is steadily losing ground in the war against crime largely because of these manpower problems. If we wish to halt this adverse decline, the only safe and honest answer is better police pay and conditions. The police


service today costs in round figures £520 million, compared with about £4,000 million spent on defence and about £2,000 million on social security. It is my belief that a much higher priority should be given to the police service by reallocating more of our national financial resources to strengthen it. I realise that this will require a strong political will in the difficult days ahead. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the Government have the necessary will.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) has displayed a formidable knowledge and insight into the realities and morale of the Metropolitan Police and the wider police service. The analysis that he has presented to the House is extremely disturbing. The points that he made, particularly about the differential effects of the rates of overtime between the different grades in the police service, are profoundly disturbing. This is an original and striking piece of research which must have been carried out with great intensity to derive these figures so recently in the aftermath of the case to which my hon. Friend referred.
I hope very much that the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure the House in the context of what my hon. Friend said. I hope, too, that she will be able to comment upon the words contained in the Vote and subhead which my hon. Friend specified in selecting this debate, namely, the fact that the extra money we are being asked to vote, the increase of £8·8 million, represents increased pay and prices and additional goods and services offset by a shortfall in recruitment.
My hon. Friend pinpointed the frightful dilemma, particularly in the metropolis, which is presented by the shortfall in recruitment. I hope that the hon. Lady will not overlook the fact—and the House must have some reassurance in the light of what my hon. Friend said—that in the relevant part of the Public Expenditure White Paper—I refer to page 87, column 15, under the heading "Police" —the projected increase in police manpower to 10,525 over the current quinquennium is lower than that which was assumed in the White Paper published by Mr. Anthony Barber as he then was.

It is very disturbing that the present Government have apparently settled for a lower figure for police recruitment, and this sticks out all the more sombrely in the light of the facts which my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the fall in estimated expenditure shown in Table 2(9) of the Public Expenditure White Paper between Mr. Barber's White Paper and the current one of £43·7 million for the financial year 1975–76 is not expected to fall wholly on the police service. I hope that the hon. Lady's advisers will find means of presenting her with information on which she can assure us that the reduction will be spread.
My hon. Friend has deployed a formidable indictment of the complacency, as it appears to many of us, of the Government in public expenditure in this sector in the context of the severe strains suffered by the police. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us.

12.22 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the initiative of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) to discuss the financing of the police service. The House discusses the police generally from time to time but it seldom singles out the financial aspects for special attention.
As has been recognised, the police are necessarily a costly service. In the coming financial year total expenditure in England and Wales, both local and central, will be about £600 million. It is important to draw a distinction between expenditure as a whole and the way in which that expenditure is met. No one would suggest that we spend too much on our police and that we could therefore do with fewer of them. We get value from our police, not only because of efficient methods and careful administration at all levels—although that is important—but because the people giving good service are dedicated to the work they do.
There is much more to an efficient service like the police than is apparent


from the accounts which we are discussing. The subhead to which the hon. Member referred comes under the main heading of "General Protective Services". When discussing financial matters we must remember the other aspects which go into the higher standard that the community receives from its police.
The hon. Member did not go into great detail about the arrangements, which are complicated, under which the police service is financed, but I should like to remind the House that expenditure is incurred in the first place by police authorities, which receive from the Home Office a specific sum of 50 per cent. of their approved expenditure. In the City of London the rate is 33½ per cent. This specific grant originated in the last century and was linked to inspection, the grant being payable only to a force which is certified as efficient. The remainder of the cost of the police service is met from rates and the rate support grant. Police expenditure is included in the total of relevant local authority expenditure for the calculation of the aggregate Exchequer grant for rate support grant purposes.
Although this system may appear complicated, the division of the cost of the police among specific grant, rate support grant and the rates may reflect a number of different considerations. To start with there is the local nature of the police service. On the other hand much of police expenditure is on manpower costs, over which police authorities have a lesser amount of discretion. Yet if all, or nearly all, of the cost were to be met by central Government this could lead to gradually increased centralisation, with far-reaching constitutional implications. I have no doubt that these considerations are among those which the Layfield Committee will have in mind.
I am sure the House realises that I cannot today make a statement of Government policy on a matter which is among those being considered by the Layfield Committee on Local Government Finance. It does, however, involve questions of pay and conditions of the police and the system of Government grants to police authorities. The Government are studying very carefully the report of the Expenditure Committee on

police manpower and recruitment, which made some very detailed recommendations. The reply will be available shortly, so I would not wish to anticipate it. I would point out, however, that action has already been taken on one issue—the lowering of the age limit. The Committee regarded that as important.
Most of the cost of the police—some 80 per cent.—goes on manpower. That was emphasised very strongly by the hon. Member for Thanet, East. The cost of the service as a whole is, therefore, very susceptible to change as manpower levels, salaries and pensions change. Other items of police expenditure are for the most part tied to manpower levels—vehicles, for example.
With that in mind, I should like to tell the House where we now stand as far as police recruitment and pay are concerned. At 31st January this year the total strength of the police forces in England and Wales was 101,926. This is a reduction of 160 from the figure of 102,086 at the end of 1974. It was due to a lower intake in January following a very high intake in November and December. The net gain for 1974 was 1,520. Recruitment during the year, at 7.545, was the highest for many years and the indications are that the drop in the intake in January was a temporary one.
The House will be aware that a feature of the rate support grant settlement for 1975–76 was that it provided for little increase in manpower, and it may be asked how this is reconciled with the Government's intention to build up police strength. The Government have placed no restriction on police recruiting and police authorities are free to recruit up to the authorised establishment of the force. The rate support grant settlement provides for an increase in strength of 1,000 police officers. This increase was that which seemed to be capable of achievement—this covers one point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison)—in the light of recruitment figures at the time of the settlement, but police authorities were told that if it was exceeded specific grant would be paid on any additional manpower recruited within the limits of authorised establishments. Provision was also made for a small increase in the number of police civilian staff, including traffic


wardens. I am aware that this unfortunately means that the expansion of the traffic warden service, particularly in London, cannot go forward as quickly as one would have hoped and as might otherwise have been the case.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash pointed out an apparent fall in provision from that of Mr. Barbers' White Paper. I should make the point that the Home Office is committed in this financial year to provide the funds needed for such recruits as there may be within approved establishments. That is the point I have just made. The Government will continue to be guided by this attitude in making future financial provision.
As regards the Metropolitan Police, on which the hon. Member for Thanet, East laid stress, I am glad to say that there was a net increase of 21 in the strength of the Metropolitan Police during January—small though the hon. Gentleman may consider it, nevertheless it was an increase—bringing the figure to 20,871.

Mr. Aitken: I think I am right in saying that of that increase of 21, 20 are women police officers and that there was a slight falling-off in the number of men police officers. The increase referred to was due largely to the new equal pay structure, which is to be welcomed, but it does not alter significantly the picture of a steady deterioration and wastage from the "Met". I hone that the Minister will not continue with the argument that one month's figures showing a sudden surge of women coming in alters in any way the fundamental truth of the picture I was painting.

Dr. Summerskill: Since the Government are about to bring in the Sex Discrimination Bill I would not suggest that because these recruits are women they should not be considered in any sort of serious way. I would not like the recruits concerned to feel that that was how they were so regarded.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I must defend my hon. Friend. He did not say anything of the kind. He said that these women came in because they wanted to take advantage of special inducements. He said that this was a good thing.

Dr. Summerskill: I share the hon. Member's welcome of women recruits.
The gain in 1974 as a whole was 67, though this included 326 officers transferred from the British Airports Constabulary.

Mr. Aitken: The Minister is scratching around in order to present a much more optimistic picture of the police than the situation deserves. Of course there was a gain where a new police force was taken over. If we discount that takeover, the overall picture gives a figure of about 280. I gave the figure for two years combined. The situation is therefore quite serious.

Dr. Summerskill: I am not trying to make out that the position is not serious. I share the hon. Member's concern. I am giving the House the figures as they are. I am not trying to make out that this is a happy situation. There is certainly a great deal to be done in getting more men to join the service. I realise full well that there is much ground to be made up before the losses of the last two years can be recouped. My right hon. Friend has announced his intention of reducing the age of entry into the police service from 19 to 18½ and we hope that this may produce some increase in numbers.
The manpower situation generally is not good. However, it must be appreciated that efforts are being made to increase manpower but that there are special difficulties in some areas, and not only in London. All the large conurbations make special demands on their police and place strains on individual officers, all of which create difficulties for these areas.
It is recognised that premature wastage in the Metropolitan Police rather than some sudden and dramatic fall in recruitment has been the main cause of the manpower difficulties of this force over the last few years. The causes of the wastage are many and complex, although in a broad sense the strains imposed by working and living in London must lie at the root of many. Clearly, however, the fewer the men, the greater the burdens placed upon them.
No single step which my right hon. Friend or the Commissioner can take will end premature wastage, but I can assure


hon. Members that no practical opportunity to improve conditions and so to help the manpower situation will be lost.
The hon. Member referred to recruitment publicity. Recruitment is the responsibility of individual chief officers of police, and police authorities are encouraged to make provision for necessary expenditure on local publicity. The Home Office, with the agreement of the local authority associations and the Commissioner of Police, arranges for national publicity. This includes direct advertising in the national Press, aimed primarily at those seeking to change their jobs, longer-term advertising intended to influence those who have not yet decided on a career, and representation of the police service at national careers exhibitions and conventions. The general effort is greatly assisted by the approaches made to schools by individual forces. Expenditure during 1974–75 is likely to be about £680,000. We intend that it should continue at this level during 1975–76. The Metropolitan Police expects to spend about £130,000 during 1974–75 and will also continue at that level in 1975–76.
The hon. Member mentioned demonstrations, and I am aware of the difficulties created for the Metropolitan Police by these. They strain the resources of the force and the patience of the officers of all ranks whose duty it is to be present at them. Moreover, many of them tend to deny officers concerned the rest and relaxation which they have earned at other times of the week. It is not easy to relieve police of this burden. A number of demonstrations present threats to public order and yet the right to free assembly is not one to be lightly restricted.
In his recent report Lord Scarman, after careful consideration, concluded that the balance of the law in these matters had not been shown to be unsound. Long and careful thought would have to be given to any proposal which limited these rights in an effort to relieve police of a difficult and sometimes dangerous job.
I am aware of the Commissioner's remarks today about demonstrations, to which the hon. Member referred. The Commissioner's views about sentences are, of course, his own and ones which he is free to express. I think that the figures

he gave of the number of demonstrations underlines the point I have already made about the burden they place upon the force.
I come now to the question of pay. A Police Council for the United Kingdom is established under the Police Act 1969 to consider questions of police pay and certain other conditions of service. Pay negotiations are the responsibility of the council, which operates on Whitley lines, with an official side consisting of representatives of the police authorities and the Home Department and a staff side comprised of representatives of police officers. Chief constables act as advisers to the official side. The council is very much aware of the needs of the service and the importance of adequate remuneration in meeting the problems of recruiting and wastage.
Last year the Police Council reached agreement on new pay scales which gave substantial increases for all ranks from 1st September. For example, the salary of a newly-appointed constable outside London was raised to £1,632 per annum, an increase of 20·6 per cent. of the previous year. In addition all police officers receive threshold payments amounting to £229·68 a year, so that a new constable now starts at £1,861. Other important features of the settlement were the introduction of a supplement to compensate for the large number of unsocial hours worked by the police, and the full implementation of equal pay for women officers. Police officers are also entitled to free quarters or a rent allowance in lieu. Maximum limits of rent allowance vary from £8·40 to £15·78, effectively tax-free. The highest allowance in England and Wales—£15·78 a week—is paid in London and is due for review from the 1st April this year.
As part of last year's agreement the Police Council agreed to undertake a review of the structure of police pay, and a working party was set up. Considerable progress has been made, and it is hoped that a report will be submitted to the Police Council at about the end of this month. If so, this will be a speedy conclusion to an extremely complex task, and I can assure the House that the Government will take very seriously the report and any recommendations which the council make on it.

Mr. Alison: In the light of the extremely revealing figures produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) on differentials between ranks, particularly in overtime, can the hon. Lady assure us that it will not be too late for the Home Office representative on the council to take these remarks into account and give some recognition to the extraordinary situation to which my hon. Friend referred?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman's speech will be carefully considered and the points he made will be looked into.
As for London, the London allowance for the federated ranks and superintendents was increased from £74 to £275 a year from 1st April that year, following the Pay Board's report. I hope that this gives some indication of the progress which has been made and which I hope will be made in police pay.
Housing was another important issue which the hon. Member for Thanet, East raised. Clearly the problems of manpower and morale in the large urban forces are exacerbated by housing problems. The Government are very conscious of the need for an effective and progressive policy. The Police Advisory Board has reconvened its working party on housing to examine schemes to facilitate house purchase by police officers. The working party has met on a number of occasions and is now preparing a report for submission to the full board as soon as possible. I can assure hon. Members that everything practicable is being done to implement proposals arising out. of this examination which will in any way contribute towards improving matters for the police service.
This has been a useful discussion, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the points he has raised will be carefully studied and borne in mind. The debate has reminded us of some of the issues which bear on the complex question of financing the police and on the matters now being considered by the Layfield inquiry. Finance is one of the cornerstones of an efficient and contented police service, and I hope that what I have said will remind the House of the constructive attitude and constant vigilance of the

Government in all matters related to the police, including pay and manpower.

Orders of the Day — THE ARTS

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The new National Theatre building was due to be opened by Her Majesty the Queen on 23rd April 1975. That date is a very special day for playgoers. It would be unpardonable if the new National Theatre were not fully operational by 23rd April 1976.
I am very pleased to see present the Minister with responsibility for the arts, because on 15th November 1974, in the debate on the National Theatre Bill, he said about the date for the opening of the new National Theatre building:
I shall be the first to announce it. I do not want anyone to imagine, because I am not in a position to announce a date today, that I do not have a pretty good idea of when it will be".—[Official Report, 15th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 777.]
If the Minister had a very good idea last November, he must have a much better idea now. Therefore, I hope that we shall have from the Minister a little more information in this debate. I must press him to take us into his confidence and give us a date.
I know that there have been difficulties. As anyone who has tried to gain possession of a new building knows, there comes a time when one has to move in, whether it is finished or not, in order to get the builders out. Perhaps we have reached this stage with Mr. Denys Lasdun's splendid building.
The National Theatre Act 1974 provided for the final finance for the construction. I put a query against that. Have we voted all the funds that will be needed to complete the construction?
What we ought to know now is whether we can have a definite promise that we shall have made available the necessary funds for the running of the theatre on a scale worthy of this splendid building. We have had quite a number of ministerial statements on that subject. I do not want to weary the House, but I must quote what Lord Strabolgi said, as the Minister responsible in the other place, in reply to a question from my noble Friend Lord Eccles. Lord Eccles had asked that all proper forward budgeting


should be allowed for, and Lord Strabolgi said:
I am sure we can give this assurance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st November 1974; Vol. 354. c. 1167.]
Then the noble Lord quoted what the Minister had said in the House of Commons on 7th November, namely,
I have indicated to the House that the Government are fully aware of the problem of running costs and that we have no intention of allowing this great new project to run down for lack of ability to maintain itself."—[Official Report, 7th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 1377.]
That all sounds very encouraging. Lord Strabolgi had said elsewhere that the country had got a most impressive and well-planned theatre complex which would be unique and second to none in the world. He went on to say something which was perhaps not quite as encouraging as what the Minister had said in this House, because he said that it was all really up to the Arts Council to find the money to run the National Theatre, as if somehow the Arts Council had some special genius in discovering the necessary money, when we all know that it is our Minister in the House of Commons who has to extract from the Treasury the funds which will run the National Theatre.
Lord Strabolgi said that the Arts Council had
long been aware of the future needs of the National Theatre and arc in regular consultation with them and of course with all the other theatres concerned. The Government have confidence in the judgment of the Arts Council."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st November 1974; Vol. 354. c. 1130.]
So have I—but judgment with what funds? That is the question. They were brave words but not quite as specific as we might have hoped.
The Minister said in this House on 15th November, at the end of his speech—and only after he had been pressed pretty hard by the Opposition:
It is the full intention of the Arts Council that the theatre shall operate fully."—[Official Report, 15th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 779.]
That was a nice, crisp little sentence, but we want to know a little more about that today.
If those brave words—and some words that were not so brave—were translated into action, I believe that it would be possible for two of the three theatres in the building to be operational by the

autumn—perhaps one in August-September and the other in November-December. That is possible, if one looks at the building and reads between the lines of the public statements of various interested parties.
I wonder whether the National Theatre Company has yet been told that it will be provided with money even to make the move into the new building. Will the Minister tell us whether that money will be forthcoming? Does the Arts Council grant for 1974–75 which has been announced take the National Theatre into account? How is the money in the Vote we are discussing to be spent? If it is all going into the building, there does not seem to be anything left over for running the threatre within the building. We need to know a good deal more about that.
Then there is the running of the new building, quite apart from what happens in it. A new building of 500,000 sq. ft. containing three theatres is bound to cost a deal of money to run. My guess is about £1 million a year just to keep it in use as a theatre, and probably about one-third of that a year to keep it closed. That suggests that it would be a good thing for the building to become operational as soon as possible.
It is not difficult to do the arithmetic and work out that it would probably cost £2 million a year to run the National Theatre in its new home over and above the cost of running it in its present form. So we need probably £1 million a year just to run the building—the Minister knows what I mean by that—and another £2 million to have performances in it, and we have 30 per cent. inflation. I do not envy the Minister his task, but it is important to come to a firm decision which will enable those concerned with the National Theatre to plan ahead. The Arts Council has not quite known where it was for a long time, and the Minister must have been as unhappy about that as we were. We knew that it was all the Treasury's fault, but the National Theatre should not be put in that position.
For every day that the new buildings are not in use we are losing money. That ought to appeal to the Treasury. The building contains three theatres capable of earning a substantial amount at the box office. It is no secret that the talented Director, Mr. Peter Hall, has said that he


hopes that in the new theatre complex there will be greater involvement with television, film and so on, and one realises the great scope for revenue. I hope the Minister will give an indication whether my guesswork is near the mark. If it is not, we ought to know. If it is, where is the money coming from?
In talking about an artistic subject it is rather sordid to have to keep harping on finance. I have to do so because the subject is raised under the Consolidated Fund Bill. When a substantial sum is being voted, one is entitled to ask how it will be spent.
It is no secret that the new National Theatre building is aimed at being a truly national theatre. Here I paraphrase the publicity put out by the new National Theatre. The building should not be the province only of the National Theatre Company. Theatre of every kind from all over the world is the aim, and the building should be used to the fullest possible extent. The people should be encouraged to think of the place as belonging to them, a theatre for the whole nation, with all kinds of formal and informal activity taking place within it. Mr. Peter Hall used very much that kind of phrase to describe the theatre. He wants other theatre—regional theatre, alternative theatre, foreign theatre—to think of the building as theirs too, as a London platform for their work.
It is important to stress this aspect because some people have called the National Theatre a white elephant. Far from it. Provided that the money is there to open it and keep it going, it will be very much more than just a London affair. The National Theatre can belong only partly to the National Theatre Company. Theatres up and down the country will be coming to London; the National Theatre Company will be visiting the provinces. This is part of the fabric built up by the Conservative Government. I am glad to think that it will be maintained by the present Government so as to make sure that we do not concentrate the arts in London. We can go out into the provinces and also we can welcome the provincials back here.
If we do not obtain the money to open the National Theatre and to run it, we shall find ourselves as a nation looking

pretty ridiculous. I cannot resist one quotation from Shakespeare's Othello:
If I quench thee, thou flaming minister, I can again thy former light restore, Should I repent me …
Well, not on the present financial indications, because I feel that they may have run out of shillings for the meter. In other words, we do not know where we are, and I hope the Minister can give us some enlightenment.
It must be stressed that if the theatre is used to the full, the cost per seat will not be more expensive than the present arrangements at the Old Vic, but if we are to assist the National Theatre in difficult times surely it is all the more important that it should get a good start in regard to forward plans. What is being done in that direction? Is the future of the National Theatre being worked in with the whole fabric of the Arts Council's overall planning? We must spare a thought for the Arts Council's other children all of whom are existing, so they say, on a shoe-string.
Some Conservatives have suggested that there might be merit in separating out the big spenders in the arts, of which the National Theatre will be one. The Minister was asked about this matter in a previous debate and did not give very much of an indication as to how he felt about the situation. There may be some disadvantages. Some of the noises made by the Arts Council are to the effect that "Yes, we take on board the fact that we have to finance the National Theatre, but it will be difficult to find money for other things." Covent Garden is one of our most expensive and worth-while undertakings, and the National Theatre will he no less expensive and no less worth while.
If the Minister has to do battle with the Treasury, perhaps he will remember that the British Tourist Authority says that this year we shall earn £1,000 million from tourism. What is it that tourists come to Britain to see? We are told that top of the list are our theatres and our national heritage. Surely even the most cautious Treasury Ministers can be persuaded to back a winner in this regard.
Perhaps I should return briefly to the Minister's rôle. I know that he is devoted to the theatre. He has spent all his life striving for better pay and conditions for


his profession. Here is the great opportunity. The audience is waiting for the curtain to rise on a project which has taken more than a century to reach completion. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if Mr. Speaker had still been present I could have reminded him that as long ago as 1962 he appointed the National Theatre Board. The theatre is still not open. It was in 1848, I believe, that it was first suggested that we should have a national theatre.
At least the building is complete, and now needs fitting out. We must get it into operation. I do not imagine that the Minister plans to find himself on stage, or even on the three stages, on opening night with nothing to offer but a noncommittal parliamentary reply. I am glad to see that he smiles at that. I am sure that the genius of Mr. Peter Hall and the inventiveness of the audience on that first night could make the Minister's appearance memorable, should he have to explain that it has not all happened as he had hoped. But that is not what he is aiming at, we know.
The hon. Gentleman is on the stage now, in not a particularly full House but in the full glare of the parliamentary footlights. We eagerly await the final scene in the drama when all is made plain.
Now I have an epilogue—I hope not an epitaph. The Consolidated Fund Bill has one other item which I discovered was in order on the subject of the arts: the purchase of the site for the extension for the Royal Opera House. I could repeat all the arguments I have already used, but I shall not. They may be taken as read. We need a progress report here, too, tonight.
The Royal Opera struggles heroically. The Arts Council cannot find enough for it. We have a great deal of welcome help coming to the Royal Opera from industry, the National Westminster Bank, Imperial Tobacco and the Midland Bank. I hope that the Minister will see that these great national institutions get the credit far the work they are doing, and that the talks which he has told me he is having with both sides of industry, with a view to further participation in the arts, are going well and will soon come to fruition.
One of the difficulties is that people who have tried to help in the arts have had scant credit or attention for their work. We have the extraordinary situation that the BBC, I am told by the Home Secretary, is not allowed to put on sponsored programmes, and yet it is broadcasting "The Masked Ball" by Verdi, which the Minister saw recently. I think that he was even invited by one of the sponsoring institutions. I am sure he had a splendid evening.
I know that the Minister appreciates the work being done, yet the Home Office says that the BBC cannot put on sponsored programmes. It is doing it, yet it will not give the National Westminster Bank or Imperial Tobacco a credit line on the title of the opera saying that they sponsored it. Those institutions are only human. They deserve a little bit of good public relations in that direction. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter. He heard me tackle the Home Secretary, who said that I should have a word with him. Now I have had a word with him. I believe that the BBC needs only a gentle nudge and that the hon. Gentleman will find that the other side of industry is not unreceptive.
What about the forward planning for the Royal Opera House? The site is purchased. May we have a progress report? If we get these new facilities, have we provision for running them? It will be a pity if we have a splendid new building adjoining the Royal Opera House and nothing going on inside it.
I end by referring again to the Minister's previous speech, when he said:
We have bought land earmarked for a future extension of the Royal Opera House. We are finding money to complete the building of the National Theatre. Go where one will—it is all happening.
Is it? The hon. Gentleman also said:
Soon I shall be issuing a publication provisionally entitled ' Arts with the People'. Those who read it may find it difficult not to take pride in belonging to this nation and in being one of these people."—[Official Report, 10th February, 1975; Vol. 886, c. 104.]
Those of us interested in the arts take pride in the achievements of this country in recent years. A crisis point has now arrived. These two great institutions are worthy of a little more consideration and support. I know that the Minister is doing his best. We shall do our best to back him in extracting from the


Treasury, with which we have all battled in the past, sufficient funds to make both great institutions an effective reality in the future.

1.6 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for raising this matter. He is especially well informed on the National Theatre, so much so that I sometimes think that he must have special sources of information. It is valuable to have the matter raised by someone who has the welfare of the theatre very much at heart.
The more often the House looks at these problems the more likely we are to arrive at a true appreciation of the difficulties and to see what we can do to achieve our ends. Happily there is no difference about what those ends are. All of us want to do everything we can to maintain and advance the great eminence which this country currently enjoys in every form of artistic activity.
However, before we discuss the problems we should recognise that they are aspects of our success. This is not, as it used to be, a Philistine country spending nothing on the arts, content with a short season at Covent Garden, with the National Theatre just a pipe dream, with the BBC struggling away at the foundations of music, with Shakespeare at Stratford for the summer and the Old Vic and Sadlers Wells doing marvels on a grudging pittance, which used to be the case; with nothing outside London but a collapsing commercial theatre and where strangulated voices and amateurish dancing filled a West End which was a great deal less glamorous than the roseate haze of memory sometimes deceitfully pretends.
At that time, before the war, Britain counted for little on the world's stage. Now the situation is greatly changed. Britain is one of the few Western countries where opera plays all the year round. We have two major houses in the capital, we have Scottish and Welsh opera and one or two others. In addition 57 publicly-supported theatre companies are operating in their own buildings, including 11 in London, and a great theatrical building is nearing completion on the

South Bank. As I said in the House once before, "It is all happening".
This is our problem. Theatres used to lose money because they were empty. Now they are full and they lose even more. How has this come about? The answer is that our attitude to the arts has changed. We no longer take the view that only that which pays can and should be done. We now say that we must do it the best way it can be done. We must do it even if it is expensive, because the theatre is as necessary to urban civilisation as an art gallery, a library or a museum. If we cannot take enough at the box office with reasonable prices, just like these other necessities of a full life, the State has the duty to step in and fill the financial gap. The trouble is that the gap is growing larger, not because public appreciation is falling away but because it is expanding and the demand is increasing all the time. The demand comes not only from our own people but also from those who come from abroad to visit us.
In these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that limitations on public expenditure are hard to bear. We are in a growth situation and much of the growth cannot be stopped. If we were to stop the completion of the National Theatre at once and leave the great building empty, it would cost several hundred thousand pounds a year for it simply to stand there, warmed, guarded, protected but empty of theatre.
There are great problems and the hon. Member has touched on some of them. I have said repeatedly both in relation to the arts in general and in relation to the National Theatre that the Government are fully aware of the situation and will do what is possible to safeguard the arts in general against high costs. In particular we have no intention of allowing the National Theatre to become a monument to the incapacity of capitalism to resolve its contradictions.
The hon. Gentleman is clearly seized of the nature of the problem at the National Theatre. I shall make further reference to it in a moment. Before doing so, however, I want to refer to the fact that I was able to announce in this House on 3rd March that the Arts Council would receive £26·15 million, subject to parliamentary grant, for next


year, including £25 million for current expenditure. So far as total expenditure is concerned, this represents a 22½ per cent. increase on spending in the current year. In his introduction to the council's annual report for 1973–74, the chairman said that the £25 million I have mentioned would be needed to keep going the activities sustained in the current year.
As I have said previously, I think that the mention in public of figures of this kind before the Government are able to announce their decisions on the level of grant-in-aid for the ensuing year can carry a risk of being counter-productive. Various kinds of confusion can arise, including on what basis the figures are compiled. For their own part, of course it is the established policy of the Government—and the same was true of previous administrations—for forward planning purposes, that prices are on a constant price basis, and this enables a true measure to be given of actual growth.
Anyone who predicted exactly what inflation was likely to be a year hence would be rash indeed, but all planning bodies have to make assumptions about what is likely to happen on the best information available. It does not pay to concede defeat before we have striven. I must therefore say that our task now is to strive to the best of our ability to use the resources which we have got to achieve what we can for the arts. As I have said, the Government are in close touch and will keep in touch.
I return to the National Theatre, having set the scene. The prospects of completion of the National Theatre raise a particular aspect of this problem. The building is nearly complete, but it is not yet possible to say precisely when the various parts of the building will be ready for use. This remarkable new structure with its three auditoria will raise our facilities for the performing arts to a new level. For this we can be grateful to those who over generations have planned to achieve this ideal. But equally it raises commitments to a new level; and the Arts Council is therefore faced with an acute problem of a substantial rise in the requirements for grant for the supported theatre solely due to the size and scale of the new facilities.

There is already evidence that the step in expenditure is likely to be between £500,000 and £1 million in order to bring the theatre into full operation, though the precise stages and timing have still to be determined.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I estimate that it will cost £1 million a year to run the building. Presumably the Minister is talking about another £1 million on top of that. That would mean that it would have the three auditoria in use. This would be £1 million extra for actors and productions, as well as £1 million extra for running the building.

Mr. Jenkins: The figures that I was giving relate to running costs, the cost of bringing the theatre into full operation. I am not in a position to give the continuing costs after that. That is a matter which the National Theatre Board will have to determine. It is not possible for me at this stage to determine the precise running costs for 19760–77. That is not possible to forecast now.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Up to the day that the theatre opens it will cost in the order of £1 million a year merely to run the building. How much extra will the National Theatre need to pay for productions to fill the three theatres over and above its present budget?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures. I am talking about the additional cost to get the building completed. The precise stages and timing of the opening and all the details have yet to be determined. The Chairmen of the Arts Council and of the National Theatre Board have kept me fully in the picture and, as I have said previously, I shall give the facts as soon as I can. I had a meeting with the two chairmen only 10 days ago. I shall be having a further meeting, if that proves necessary, before very long. The matter is under active discussion. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at a time between meetings it is a little difficult, before matters are finally concluded, for me to supply the precise information he wants. At this moment the information is not available.
Some have argued that the National Theatre—the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this point and perhaps he will let me deal with it now—having been constructed under an Act of Parliament from


capital grants paid direct to the South Bank Theatre Board and not through the Arts Council, should be in receipt of a separate grant direct from the Government. I am opposed to this idea because it would not produce any extra resources and would put the Government into the position of dictating to the Arts Council what proportion of total arts resources should be given to the National Theatre as opposed to all its other commitments. It is the duty of the Arts Council under its charter to take these decisions, and I am satisfied that it does not want this function usurped by me. Neither do I wish to usurp the function from the council.
It has also been argued that a separate grant should be made for the maintenance of the South Bank building and that the Arts Council should be responsible merely for the grants to the National Theatre Company, which operates in the building. Such an arrangement would, of course, provide no extra resources, because all expenditure on arts buildings, including the museums and galleries, has to be found from the total available for the arts. However, it is up to the Arts Council and the National Theatre Board to decide whether, in presenting the outcome of their calculations, they split their sums between these two heads for the sake of clarity. The idea that either of these two proposals would result in a net increase in total funds needs to be put on one side.
The Arts Council is naturally concerned about the implications for its grant in future years and of the need to put life into this great new building, which has been provided for the greater part at public cost by collaboration between the Greater London Council and the Government. I am aware of the importance to the Arts Council of being able to plan ahead in such circumstances. The Government will give an indication of the level of the 1976–77 grant just as soon as we can. We hope not to be as late with it as we were last year. The difficulties were then peculiarly great.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will appreciate that I am trying to be both Front Bencher and back bencher. Is £1 million which the Minister has mentioned the money already in the National Theatre

Act that is being added to complete the building, or is it some other £1 million that is coming from somewhere else? That we must know.
What the hon. Gentleman said about next year's Arts Council grant is helpful. Has the Arts Council got the money in its coffers to get the National Theatre off the ground? Presumably it will not have to wait beyond 23rd April next year. May we know more about that?

Mr. Jenkins: It is difficult for me to be specific. On the first point, I have been referring to capital expenditure—money intended to complete the building. I have not been discussing the running costs. That question is currently under discussion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we were to allow the theatre to stand empty—we have no intention of allowing that to occur—to keep it warm, light and functional would cost several hundred thousand pounds a year without anything happening in it. That was as far as I went in talking about running costs. I hope to say more about that matter before too long.
I turn now to the question of help which is given by private organisations to the arts. The hon. Gentleman referred to assistance given to productions at the Royal Opera House as an example. As he rightly said, I saw a splendid production of Verdi's "Masked Ball", which was assisted by the National Westminster Bank and the Imperial Tobacco Company.
I have been having discussions with representatives of business organisations on this matter—for example, Mr. Campbell Adamson of the CBI. I understand from other sources, not Mr. Campbell Adamson, that there is uncertainty at the moment whether business organisations would welcome the disclosure of all that they are doing in this connection. I hope that British business organisations will not feel that their shareholders would resent their doing anything for the arts but will take the same view as some American companies—that this is something of which a company should be proud and be prepared to boast about. As soon as I have an indication that such a step would be generally welcomed, I shall be glad to answer a Question in this House about what business organisations


are doing and for whom with a view to encouraging others to do likewise.
I am not in a position to do that at the moment. I do not wish to embarrass or inflict discomfort upon any organisation which prefers, for one reason or another, to hide its light under a bushel. I wish to disclose those organisations which wish to be disclosed without lifting the veil on others which may wish, for perfectly valid reasons, to keep the situation private—at least for the time being.
Unfortunately I can give no undertaking about the proposed extension to the Royal Opera House. By any standard that would be an expensive project, and the Government have no plans at present to embark upon it. However, we have ensured that the opportunity provided by the move of the Covent Garden Market to Nine Elms has not been missed. We have therefore provided in the Estimate that we have discussed tonight funds for the purchase of the land required for the extension. I can announce that the Arts Council is now the owner of this land and that it will determine its usage in the intervening period.
I and my colleagues in the Government remain firmly of the opinion that the secret of the success to which I referred in my opening remarks is partly, perhaps even largely, to be found in the response doctrine support for the arts outlined by Sir Hugh Willatt in the Arts Council's report for 1973–74. We are committed as a party by our manifesto to making the Arts Council
more democratic and representative of people in the arts and in entertainment.
That we shall do. Indeed, we have already taken the first steps in widening the trawl from which names are drawn from representative organisations. But that does not mean that we intend to change the fundamental basis of arts support. On the contrary, we are firmly committed to the view that we do not want and will not have a Minister for Culture who lays down a Government line on the arts which all who wish to be financed must follow.
The Government regard those of their citizens who promote, practise and perform in the arts as being among the most precious assets this country possesses. It

is not within our power to prevent them from being frightened by the consequences of inflation—they would be foolish if they were not so frightened—but we shall do our best to see that the reality is less alarming than their present apprehension.
It is usually the case that the prophets of doom prove to be no more than people indulging in an enjoyable game which all children like to play—that of scaring the pants off the rest of us. My advice to artistes is "Do not fall for it. You have done and are doing great things." The record of Labour Governments in the arts from 1964 onwards is a proud one, and in spite of economic restraints it is a record which we intend to maintain and as soon as we can to enhance.
In that endeavour it will be our intention so far as the National Theatre is concerned not only to encourage the development of this great building but to ensure that it opens as soon as possible and brings great pleasure not only to the House but to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Front Bencher and back bencher combined. It is in the spirit of common endeavour and the intention to be as frank as we can as soon as we can that I have replied to the debate.

Orders of the Day — MATTHEW-SKILLINGTON REPORT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) to begin the next debate I should point out that his remarks should be limited to the increase of staff and that he should not debate the policy issues involved in the Matthew-Skillington Report.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: Class VIII, Vote 7, Subhead A1, deals with salaries of the Department of the Environment, and we read in paragraph (3) that the existing provision of £35·8 million for the salaries of 11,563 staff
in support of various programmes
has been revised upwards to £38·3 million. This increase gives me an opportunity to seek to establish from the Minister what provision, if any, has been made within that sum of £38·3 million for the implementation of the Minister's various decisions which he announced on the Matthew-Skillington Report.
I appreciate the narrow scope of the debate, and I shall confine my remarks solely to the staffing questions arising from that Estimate. As this matter indirectly concerns building I, as always, declare an interest as a non-executive director of Lovell Homes Ltd., although that has no relevance to this debate.
It was in December 1972 that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) appointed that distinguished architect Sir Robert Matthew and that fine public servant, since retired, Mr. Patrick Skillington to inquire into methods by which the Department of the Environment could promote high standards of design in Government building. I say in passing that it is ironic that the Department of the Environment should be housed in arguably the worst example of 1960s architecture in central London, with its three brutalised towers and windswept, dreary appearance.
Sir Robert and Mr. Skillington completed their report last April and it was made available for comment to a limited number of organisations and trade journals at the end of July. I suspect that the relatively slow and cautious attitude which Ministers took towards publication was due to the extremely careful and outspoken nature of the recommendations in the report. This is also borne out by the fact that despite regular Questions from me the Secretary of State for the Environment did not announce his decision until 4th March 1974, nearly 11 months after the publication of a report which is only 41 pages long in toto. In saying that, I make no party point at all.
The administrative and financial arrangements governed by this Estimate and which the authors commented on so unfavourably in the report have existed for many years through a succession of different Ministries—Housing, Public Building and Works and so on—and any experienced Whitehall observer knows that departmental reshuffles of staff usually involve the same people doing the same jobs under different titles but not, as in local government, for more money.
There are three different aspects of the report and the staffing implications which I wish to consider. The first deals with the Property Services Agency. According to answers that I have received from Ministers over the past 12 months, on

1st June 1974 the agency directly employed 411 architects who designed slightly less than half the annual workload of about £250 million of new construction in 1973, of which £28 million worth was overseas.
The authors of the report say bluntly that the agency was falling down on its job of promoting high standards of design and was restricting good architects. For example, in paragraph 2.7 they say:
… if the quality and variety of opportunities could be taken as the sole measure, the Property Services Agency could well be expected to attract consistently high levels of talent without difficulty. This is not happening.
We read of great difficulties in recruiting good architects, of ageing staff, that
the general level of quality of buildings is mediocre",
and in paragraph 3.7 that the Property Service Agency follows
some inherited professional practices which are now largely discredited amongst the professions at large—e.g. the use of 'drawing offices' not forming integral parts of the design teams and the use of partial commissions.
In short, they say, the agency is in a self-defeating situation. High-quality design requires high-quality architects, and high-quality architects will only be attracted to an organisation which clearly gives maximum opportunities for the deployment of total professional skills.
The report therefore recommended the appointment of a chief architect of deputy secretary rank with wide-ranging responsibilities, but without immediately the line management control of design which would give him effective supervision of client programmes, cost targets and so on, although there was to be a pilot scheme of direct control of one design office. Wider responsibilities would come later through a series of separate regional design offices.
The Minister has partly accepted the recommendation by appointing a Director-General of Design Services, Mr. W. D. Lacey, as a deputy secretary at a salary of £14,000 per annum. That was announced on 4th March. Is that appointment budgeted for in this Estimate? The director-general's role, we are told, will be broadly as recommended by the report, except that there is no real suggestion of total line management or regional design offices. There is only a very tentative genuflexion to that end


in paragraph 13 of the Secretary of State's decision letter of 4th March.
How many staff will be directly responsible to Mr. Lacey in the forthcoming year? How many of them will be architects? How many will be newly recruited to the Department of the Environment? What is the overall budget for this exercise and how does it fit in with this Estimate? Secondly, how many of the architects already employed by the PSA will be responsible to Mr. Lacey directly, how will they he chosen and on what basis?
Thirdly, what proportion of the design commissions of the PSA will be given to the director-general for his unit and under what criteria will they be allocated to him? If the same architects are used as under existing arrangements, how will design standards be improved? Fourthly, will Mr. Lacey be able to implement the recommendations in paragraph 6.7 of the report that architects in the PSA should be called architects and not P & TO IIs?
Fifthly, is it intended to continue to process normal regional design projects through the regional offices of the agency? If so, will there be any alteration of staffing arrangements there, and is it covered in this Vote?
Personally I do not think that the report, the Minister or this Vote, have gone far enough. When one reads statements such as
The PSA, as at present constituted, carries an unsatisfactory, even daunting image. It is one of a large impersonal administrative machine",
it is not enough simply to recommend that the name of the agency be altered to seem more environmentally conscious. What is now needed is a full-scale review of the PSA, including whether it should employ designing architects at all—a major question which is quite inadequately dealt with in paragraph 7.2 of the report. That is something which could well be looked at by the Expenditure Committee.
I turn to the second part of the report, which arises under this Vote and which deals with the central Department of the Environment. Here again, with the exception of the Department of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, the

report is highly critical of present arrangements. The report recommended that there should be a Directorate of the Built Environment in the Department of the Environment, as well as the existing Housing Development Directorate, and that it should be headed by a chief environmental architect. Fortunately the Secretary of State has rejected that recommendation. I say "fortunately" because I do not believe that such an appointment would have served any useful purpose. For example, the Housing Development Directorate in June 1974 already employed 25 architects and 13 chartered surveyors, who perform a useful research rôle which could be expanded to meet the Matthew-Skillington recommendations at less cost.
The right hon. Gentleman's alternative decision is to set up an environmental board comprising various departmental heads and some outside professionals. This looks to me like a suspiciously nebulous exercise. I therefore pose these administrative questions to the Minister. First, arising out of this Vote, what will be the size and staffing costs of the secretariat of the board and, since they will presumably be taken from their existing duties to undertake this administrative work, will they be replaced by newly-recruited civil servants or will their work be allocated among existing officials. with no staff increase?
Secondly, will the external members of the board be paid under this Vote? If so, how much, and how will they be chosen? Thirdly, we are told that the first job of the board is apparently to help local authorities to implement certain sections of land nationalisation. What has that got to do with design, and why should these duties be remitted to a body which involves officials without any departmental responsibility in that regard? Why cannot the Chief Planner's Department do it on its own?
I have a strong suspicion that this board will be just another Marsham Street talking shop. I very much doubt whether it will in any way improve design standards because I doubt whether the very senior and busy men involved will be able to devote sufficient time to such politically unexciting fields of endeavour.
My final set of comments concerns the Minister's decision on that section of the Matthew-Skillington report which deals


with liaison with the construction industry. Once again the report was sharply critical of the Department for failing to act effectively in its sponsoring rôle, but there was also trenchant criticism of the industry's collective structure, with the undoubtedly true statement that
The industry tends to present its case in a fragmented, ill-organised and sometimes contradictory way.
The report very sensibly recommended that a new section should be set up in the DGER to study the details of economic behaviour in the building industry. Is that recommendation accepted by Ministers? Is it part of this Estimate? hope so, because when I was director of the House-Builders Federation I felt that the grasp of the practical problems of the housebuilder at the highest level of the Department of the Environment was something less than satisfactory. That is a sphere to which both the Minister and his adviser, Mr. Warren Evans, should turn their attention.
In this necessarily limited debate I have dealt not with the policy of the Matthew-Skillington Report—that would be out of order—and still less with the important design considerations which arise, but with some complex administrative matters which raise important matters of financial policy and control. I hope that the Minister has taken note of them and will endeavour to answer them. However, it is only right to conclude by congratulating Sir Robert and Mr. Skillington on their very thought-provoking report. Like Ministers, I did not agree with all of it, but it dealt with these serious problems in a refreshingly frank way.

1.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) not only on raising this most interesting subject but also on his skill in remaining in order while he did so. I had the feeling that a number of the interesting questions which he posed to me were not questions on which he expected precise and immediate replies but were rhetorical questions put in order for him to remain in order. However, knowing the hon. Member's almost insatiable appetite for information connected even remotely with the

building industry I feel sure that if he were to be given all the answers he would be pleased with them and would profit from receiving them.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's decision to raise this subject. I wish he had been a little more successful in the Ballot so that we could have gone home a little earlier, but this is as suitable a time as any to discuss the matter.
Though the decisions on the Matthew-Skillington Report relate to the internal organisation of the Department of the Environment, they have a potential impact on the built environment which is far-reaching. As the House and certainly the hon. Member for Melton will know, the inquiry carried out by Sir Robert Matthew and Mr. Skillington was initiated in 1972 by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Its terms of reference were:
to advise on the possible means of promoting high standards of design in Government building in the conservation of the built environment and in new physical development within the purview of the Secretary of State for the Environment; and to report on those means and their organisational implications.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose suitability to the post of Secretary of State for the Environment was not noticed as widely as it should have been —he had a considerable experience in local government and had interests in all the matters pertaining to the Department—chose well.
Sir Robert Matthew is one of our leading architects, and in Mr. Skillington he was supported by a distinguished administrator with extensive experience of the construction responsibilities of government—and who was later to acquire certain more controversial experience to which the House will be turning its attention in the next few days. Their report is warmly to be commended for its valuable contribution towards the more effective promotion of good design. I am certain that the hon. Member for Melton will join with me on that point even though he and the Department have not been able to accept everything put forward.
However, in view of the wider interest in the report my right hon. Friend thought it right to consult widely on the findings. and in particular to seek the views of the professional institutions and the local


authority associations. That consultation yielded a wide spectrum of views which my right hon. Friend was bound to take into account. This inevitably took time. The report was made public on 19th July last year and the decisions were announced only a few days ago.
The commissioning of the inquiry reflected the view that there was a need to strengthen the architectural contribution both to the Department of the Environment's wider environmental policies and to its works, and that view is also now taken by my right hon. Friend. That is not to say that the Department has cause to be ashamed of its record to date. A great deal has been done by those already working in the Department in the last year or two to develop more sensitive policies towards the built environment; policies which are more discriminating in deciding what to replace and what to conserve, which are better directed to moulding the pattern of change so as to blend the new with the old.
The steps now taken are therefore to be seen not as a big revolutionary leap forward, but as a further important move along a road on which we are already travelling. It is inapposite to use language such as alleging that the Property Services Agency is falling down on its job. It is an organisation which has been in existence for only a couple of years. It has not had time to fall down on its job. It is an organisation which is only getting into its stride.
Part I of the report deals with the Property Services Agency. My right hon. Friend entirely endorses what the report says about the potential influence of the PSA on architectural standards. Those who work in the agency have managed already to create a body representing the practical arm of the Department of the Environment in the area of constructional design. They and it are in a unique position to demonstrate in practice the significance of Government policies on the built environment. Those who work for the agency and are responsible for its activities are responsible for a large programme of building at home and abroad. The works for which the PSA is responsible include offices, law courts workshops, prisons, military installations,

housing for the Armed Forces, embassies—a number of which I have visited—and a variety of specialised works.
The report, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, recommended the appointment of a chief architect in the PSA. As the hon. Member has said, we have instead appointed a Director General of Design Services. This difference is important. We have not appointed Mr. Lacey to be a chief architect but to be chief professional in relation to all the various forms of expertise involved in building design. This difference reflects the view, strongly held by many consulted on the report, that an enhancement of design standards depends on an integrated approach, embracing all the professions represented on design teams.
My right hon. Friend has accordingly welcomed the main proposition in Part I of the report that there should be a top-ranking professional in the PSA with the central aim of promoting high standards of design. As I have said, he has therefore created the new post of Director General of Design Services in the agency and he has appointed to it Mr. W. D. Lacey, an architect with a distinguished record of service in the Department of Education and Science and in local government. Mr. Lacey is a widely-respected figure in the architectural profession.
Mr. Lacey's job will be a key one. He will have deputy secretary status and play a full part in the top management of the agency. He will have both a general advisory rôle on design matters and direct control over a new multi-disciplinary design office. He will be particularly concerned with advising on recruitment and career management of professional staff, and with securing an effective contribution from private consultants towards the work of the agency. We must always be cautious about the engagement of outside consultants. Those who work in the agency can often be jealous of their position within the agency and rightly so.

Mr. Michael Latham: Can the Minister say whether there is any significance in the fact that in A1(4) of the Vote there is a revised provision downwards in consultation fees for the coming year? Does this involve a policy indicating the use of fewer private architects?

Mr. Kaufman: There is no policy of the use of fewer private architects. It has been represented to us, in informal consultations with the staff, that they prefer the work to go to the agency. That is more economical and more sensible. It depends on the workload and the kind of work that comes to the agency—there is no specific policy.
The particular aspect of the job I have mentioned will be of vital importance in generating a cross-fertilisation of talent between the public and private sectors. Mr. Lacey will also be responsible for a range of technical development and other specialist work which is important not only to the Department of the Environment but to the construction industry as a whole—for example, development of "method of building", standardisation of building components and use of computerised design techniques. He is, however, to review the organisation of development work and will not retain responsibility for all of it.
Mr. Lacey's functions have not been exhaustively defined and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be sensible to do so before he takes up his post. There is no point in laying down a framework for a job which has only just been created and which we trust will go ahead under its own momentum. It is obvious that the job is a real one and is backed with due authority. Mr. Lacey has not been appointed to a vague advisory rôle on the sidelines but will take his place in the agency's top management team and have direct responsibility for a design office. He will not control the architects in the regions, and he wants to see how his first office goes before he considers any further changes. I am sure that that is right.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are willing to consider retitling P and T architects as architects. Discussions are currently in progress with the staff organisations on this matter.
The report suggested that in the longer term the new official should gradually extend his control over all the design work of the agency and that this should be organised in a series of design offices separate both from the client-oriented directorates at the agency's headquarters and from its regional organisation. We

believe that we must proceed more cautiously and empirically.
The PSA has been in existence only since September 1972, and its creation followed other substantial changes in organisation, notably the establishment of the Department of the Environment itself in 1970, and measures taken by Sir Michael Cary in 1969 in the former Ministry of Public Building and Works to integrate professional and administrative staff. We have to be particularly careful that we do not impair the agency's high standards of service by superimposing one reorganisation on another.
When I use the phrase "high standards of service" I mean it. The PSA is a unique organisation. No other country has an organisation, with its standard, scope and integrity, quite like it. If the hon. Gentleman were to visit the PSA establishment in our High Commission in New Delhi, he would be enormously impressed with the work which is done there. It is a superb advertisement for the PSA and for British governmental methods.
Moreover, as was pointed out in several of the comments received on the report, we must beware of undoing the present integration of professional and administrative work which was brought about in the light of the Fulton Report and which has begun to bear fruit.
We believe that the changes we have now made will not only lead to an enhancement of the design standards of the agency's work but also exercise a wider beneficial influence in promoting environmental policies. We also believe that these changes will contribute towards a strengthening of the fruitful relationships between the Department and the construction industry.
Mr. Lacey's salary is budgeted for in the Estimates.
Part 2 of the report covers the Department in "its wider housing and planning role". Here I must point out, first, that problems in this area are in many ways more complex and less readily accessible to straightforward solutions. This point was acknowledged by the report, which, of course, diagnosed with a good deal of accuracy some of the shortcomings of the Department in meeting its responsibilities in relation to design standards. But it seemed clear at an early stage that the report's specific recommendations did not


quite reflect the special character of the Department's rôle in respect of design. Nor did it adequately take into account the contribution of other authorities and professions.
Moreover, there had been a major development since the report was compiled, namely, publication of the White Paper on land—the hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship of the land legislation to what we have in mind—and this in particular was bound to cause a reappraisal of the report's recommendations.
It is vital to remember that the Department of the Environment's rôle in influencing design is indirect. There is much scope here, given the Department's close links with the construction industry and related professions, local authorities and other statutory bodies which actually build. But while day-to-day decisions rightly remain with the latter, the Department's rôle must largely remain advisory—and must, moreover, reach at more aspects of design than purely aesthetic ones.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it seems to me that we are getting on to the policy issues involved in the report rather than keeping to the discipline which I tried to impose.
The hon. Member and I know that he has been running along the line of order a little bit, but mostly he has been in order.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could help the Under-Secretary, and whether he could relate his remarks upon the rôle of the Environmental Board, as I did, to the increases in the salaries of the staff, because that would seem to be quite germane to the question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not mind on what hook the Minister hangs his coat as long as it is covered by the Estimates.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall hang up my coat entirely fairly soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since I am coming towards the end of my remarks. I shall immediately veer back into order, having been given the most generous latitude by yourself, aided by

the Red Cross flag of the hon. Member for Melton.
Perhaps I should resume with half a sentence of my argument, to get right back to the chief architect and his salary. I have listed the reservations which have led to the choice of a different solution from that represented by the chief architect and the Directorate of the Built Environment, as recommended in the report. Our reservations were reinforced by most of those who commented.
In the light of this a rather different solution was required, and in devising it the importance of the new proposals on development land has been given a proper place. It was because of this that we decided to set up the Environmental Board. The land proposals will entail ownership of all development land by the community and will place on local authorities new responsibilities for a broader and more positive approach to planning, development and design.
Thus came the decision to set up the Environmental Board. It has already been announced that its membership will include the Department's Chief Planner, the new Director General of Design Services in the PSA—Mr. Lacey—the Director General of Highways—I am now flooding the House with the names of personnel—the deputy secretaries responsible for housing and for the environmental group, and the newly appointed Industrial Adviser on Construction, Mr. Warren Evans, who took up his appointment at the beginning of the year. It will also include the deputy secretary in charge of planning in the South-East, whose responsibilities cover London planning—with all its implications in terms of development—and ancient monuments and historic buildings.
I can now announce that the chairman will be a second permanent secretary and that the names of candidates appointed from outside—local authorities and the private sector—will be announced by the Secretary of State very shortly.
At full strength the board will consist of between 12 and 14 members. The frequency of its meetings will be agreed when the chairman and his colleagues decide on the method of approaching the complex tasks ahead of them. But continuity as well as professional assistance


will be provided by the senior multidisciplinary support team, on which staffing proposals are now being drawn up.
The first and major task of the board, supported by the team, will be to consider the environmental implications of the land proposals and particularly the guidance on which local authorities will need to draw to benefit in full from the scheme. We consider this to be of the utmost importance. There are complex new tasks ahead for both central and local government in which the fullest cooperation is required to ensure that the wide environmental consequences of the land programme shape in the best interests of the community as a whole. This involves design very crucially, but design seen in terms of the collective effort of many related skills and expertise. It is not a task for architectural skills alone.
That does not exhaust the board's remit. It will have wider duties to examine ways of assisting local government and others in the general exercise of planning powers with the aim of improvement to the built environment in every practical way.
Thus there are substantial tasks ahead of the board. The tasks identified by the report were substantial, and the report pointed clearly in the direction of the need for a high-powered board such as is now envisaged, combining wide experience and professional skills and supported by an appropriately mixed senior professional team. I have every confidence that this is the right way to tackle the job ahead, and it is especially gratifying that my right hon. Friend's proposals have received a wide welcome in the professional journals and from many others who have taken a particular interest in these matters.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. If I have not answered some of the precise statistical questions he raised, I shall write to him and give him all the information he requires.

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It will save time in the ensuing debate if I remind hon. Members who wish to speak that the effect of reduced subsidies for fuel oil upon glasshouse producers, for which there is no provision in the Estimates, is beyond the scope of our debate. A wide debate on capital grants is in order.

2.2 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: This is not the first time I have spoken on finance for the horticulture industry, and I suspect that it may not be the last. We had full debates both before Christmas and earlier today on the oil subsidy, which was mentioned by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a specially important subject for my constituency of Chichester as Sussex is responsible for the production of one-seventh of the total horticultural produce of the country.

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but in view of your ruling may I seek your guidance? Your suggestion that comments on the fuel subsidy will be out of order has put us in some difficulty. We are told that the reason for the dramatic increase in the grants under Subhead D1 is that the number of applications has been higher than was expected. Surely it would be in order for us to discuss why the number of applications was higher and whether, in view of Government policy, it might be lower in future. Surely it would be in order to discuss trends which might alter the number of applications for grant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt use his skill within the arrangement I announced, namely, that a wide debate on capital grants is in order. To devote time to the effect of reduced subsidies, which are not covered by the Vote, would be out of order. A passing reference will no doubt be acknowledged.

Mr. Jopling: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all grateful for your clarification.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Further to


that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think it will be of help to the House if I point out that the statement in the Estimates that the number of applications was much higher than expected is erroneous.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. John Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Estimates are erroneous, I think the matter should be taken away and that this debate should come to an end. If the Minister has come to the House to say that he does not know what he is talking about and that his paperwork is out of order, would it be in order for me to move to adjourn the debate, pending the Minister's finding out what he is to do, so that we may resume on another day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might move such a motion but I would not accept it at this stage. I think that once the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has made his speech it might be as well, in view of what the Minister said, for him to rise early in this debate.

Mr. Nelson: I shall indeed widen my comments on this subject but I hope at the same time to keep within the ambit you have set us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to preface my remarks by indicating the size of the problem and its relevance to my constituency.
The horticulture industry is responsible for about one-tenth of the total value of agricultural produce in this country. The area along the Sussex coast, predominantly on the western side around Chichester and Arundel, is responsible for about one-seventh of the horticultural total. Since £100 million has been spent on capital investment in the industry since 1960, it is important that we should look at the financing of horticulture in a wide context—including preferential finance, capital grants, incentives to modernise production and marketing, oil subsidies or a market intervention system. All these forms of support are designed by national Governments to give a particular advantage to countries competing in Europe. Because of the competitive nature of the European market, all types of assistance must be looked at in assess-

ing the extent to which they enhance production and competitiveness in the country concerned.
If we look at European examples, we see that at present Belgian growers enjoy a subsidy of 0·3 Belgian francs per litre on liquid fuel until the end of March this year. In Denmark the State Guarantee Bank gives credits to the industry totalling 100 million Danish kroner, with a subsidy on interest over 6 ½ per cent. Eire continues to operate until the middle of the year a subsidy of 2p a gallon. In France there is a similar subsidy on light oil of 38 francs and on heavy oil of 32 francs. In Holland, where 80 per cent. of consumers are on natural gas, there is a similar subsidy, plus a refund of 4 per cent. VAT, with interest-free bank loans of 50 Dutch florins per thousand litres.
In this competitive market one must compare assistance to continental growers with the overall help given to the British horticulture industry. I seek clarification from the Minister on the proportion of the figures shown in the Supply Estimates applying to horticulture. In regard to the form of the Horticultural Development Scheme outlined in Subhead D1, we know that the scheme came into operation at the beginning of 1974 and will continue until 1982 under EEC Directive 72/159, which is partly financed by the Community's Agricultural Fund. To what extent is that figure in the Supply Estimates exclusive of any finance provided by the EEC? Can the Minister apportion help from EEC funds in relation to the amount quoted in the Supply Estimates dealing with horticulture?
The scheme is designed to enable farmers and growers with businesses whose incomes per labour unit are below the average earnings in non-agricultural industry in this country to achieve a comparable income. Applicants whose development plans are approved under the scheme can receive capital grants for the investments needed to carry through the plans, a grant for keeping accounts and, where necessary, guarantees for any loan needed to carry out the plans. For horticulture in particular, grants of 30 per cent. for buildings, except traditional production buildings, 20 per cent. for most plant and equipment and 10 per cent. for minor equipment are available under the scheme. If we are to assess the value of


these capital grants, we must have further information on the application of grants for these purposes.
I would also ask the Minister to take up the smaller provision of grants for keeping accounts. It seems that farm account grants payable under the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme are not included in the figures given for the scheme in Subhead D1 and instead are included under Subhead E2. Why is the provision for 1974–75 substantially lower than that estimated? Why has the scheme been much slower to start than was expected?
We are talking about an overall amount which is comparatively small compared to the historic financing of the industry. With the Horticulture Improvement Scheme now finished, the only reflection of the scheme we see in the Supplementary Estimates is contained in Subheads D8 and D10, providing for historic payments of £5·2 million and just over 1 million by way of supplementary grants, bringing the total paid under the HIS to over the £47 million provided originally.
I would welcome a clearer picture of the overall amount provided by way of capital grants to the industry, and I ask the Minister to confirm or deny that it is now more than was originally envisaged under the scheme. Can the Minister quantify it?
I turn to D11 concerning grants for the encouragement of co-operation in agriculture and horticulture. What proportion applies to horticulture in this country? In particular, will the Minister give an indication of the take-up of grants under D1 and D11 by the land settlement associations? They are particularly important producers of a wide variety of horticultural products and have provided many people with the ability to start their own businesses. They are particularly important in Chichester, where we have many tenant horticulturists whose families have worked on land settlement for generations.
The associations flourished during the 1930s, when they provided alternative employment for people from areas of high unemployment. They provided invaluable employment and production throughout the years. Many people who work on the land settlements have fathers and grandfathers who have worked the

same land. Their future is now imperilled by the unfair competition they have to meet and by the way in which the Government refused to provide them with assistance in their hour of need.
We have been told today that the assistance given is not comparable with that provided in Europe, because it has been given over a longer period in this country. Yet it is in the past couple of years that costs in the industry have risen out of all proportion to market returns and the assistance is so badly needed. Costs increased by about 25 per cent. in 1973–74 and they are projected to be up by about 68 per cent. in the forthcoming year.
These are major problems which growers, especially those in the land settlement associations who do not have the capital resources with which to cushion the financial effects of these hard times, will not be able to solve. Growers in my constituency are desperately concerned that this will force a substantial number of young people, who have invested money and time in trying to make a go of their own tenancies, out of the business, with substantial personal losses to boot. I seek a statement and an assurance from the Minister as to what assistance he might render, or consider giving, to that section of the horticulture industry.
While it is not in order to stray directly on to the question of the oil subsidy, it would be inappropriate to let a debate such as this go by without yet again saying to the Minister that it is not too late to reconsider a subsidy. When we look at the overall finance made available by means of subsidy or capital grant to this industry, and the unfair competitive situation in which we are placed vis-à-vis Eire, which continues to enjoy a 2p per gallon subsidy, we must remember that a similar subsidy in the United Kingdom for half a year would cost slightly more than £1,500,000. I challenge hon. Members to turn up virtually any page of this large volume of Supply Estimates without seeing a figure in excess of that. When we talk about the survival of an industry, we must take that into consideration.
If capital grants are to continue to be paid, we must have assurances that the industry will survive unfair competition.


I ask the Minister to say what action he intends to take. Can he give us some indication of his response to any European initiative, especially any digressive aid policy which might be introduced, whether in the form of oil subsidies or capital grants? I have the impression, which is perhaps unfounded, that the Government are stalwartly refusing to regard sympathetically any European measures to provide degressive aid to the horticulture industry. Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point and say that any policies or programmes presented will be sympathetically considered on their merits, bearing in mind the crisis which the industry now faces. Such an assurance would greatly reassure the growers in my constituency.
What action are the Government taking on a European level to curb the unfair aid made available in our neighbouring European countries? The horticulture industry is not in favour of long-term subsidies, whether for oil or capital expenditure. I do not plead for longterm subsidies. We are all in favour of freer and competitive trade. Our horticulture industry is second to none and is capable of competing more than successfully with our European neighbours on a fair basis. But this is not the situation now. On the one hand it is incumbent on us to help our industry during a unique and difficult period. On the other hand the Government must take more progressive action to ensure that our European neighbours practise stricter restraints and uniformity in the level of aid and assistance given to their industries.
The amount of hidden subsidy and the speed with which European Governments respond to inflationary increases in costs, especially of oil, mean that the position of our horticulturists in the market place becomes worse daily. The industry will not survive unless the Government are prepared to think again on this. Earlier today we heard that the horticulture industry reaped the benefit of the Agricultural Finance Corporation. However, that benefit is not comparable with the financial assistance rendered to European competitors.
I ask the Minister to indicate whether some action under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act of 1964 can be impl-

mented by way of an order to control and restrain imports from countries outside the EEC and to prescribe minimum price levels for imports from those areas. I am thinking of products like Romanian tomatoes, which admittedly are a small proportion of the overall market but which nevertheless might be of importance in a price-sensitive market at certain times of the year.
It is regrettable that we have to scratch round to provide some way of ensuring that an industry and a heritage as important as this is allowed to continue.
I urge the Minister to think again on the oil subsidy and to consider in a reasonable manner any proposals put forward from the European Community on degressive aid policies.
It is not appropriate for me to comment on what the Minister said about the increase under Subhead D1 being erroneous. I hope that I shall be allowed to interject a few remarks on that later.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the hard feelings of many of my constituents whose lives are so closely tied to the industry, the sincerity and fear that they feel and their hope that they will receive assurance from him in the course of this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Gavin Strang.

Mr. Jopling: I hope that the Minister will respond to your invitation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which we all heard. It must be almost unprecedented for a Minister to tell us, early in a debate on an Estimate, that what we are debating is erroneous. It is inconceivable that we should continue this debate for very much longer without some explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he may be in difficulty, perhaps, thinking that he would not then have an opportunity to reply to the debate. But I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say we should be glad to give him the leave of the House so that he might reply to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). I have been a Member of the House long enough to know that the unexpected may always be expected. It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of hearing a Minister say before we start


that his report was wrong. It may be that the Minister would like to address the House.

Mr. Strang: I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that I made my interjection earlier purely to be helpful, because it appeared to me that hon. Gentlemen were likely to hang a whole discussion about fuel oil on the basis of an observation which was untrue.
I can inform hon. Gentlemen that there has been an error—and everyone is human—in the printing of the Estimate, but only to the extent that the note on the Farm and Horticultural Development Scheme, Vote I, D.1 on page 67, should have referred to the volume of the investment which we expected and not to the number of applications. I regret this error and apologise for its misleading character.

Mr. Nelson: Are the figures the same?

Mr. Strang: The Supplementary Estimate is not affected. It is simply that that note referring to the number of applications is erroneous. What has changed is the volume and likely value of the applications.

Mr. Jopling: Let me try to clear this up. The hon. Gentleman says that the increase in the amount to be spent is as printed. Are we to take it that the number of applications was as expected in the original Estimate but that the amount that these people have applied for has doubled? That would explain the almost doubling in the suggested increase of £595,000.
It would help us if at this early stage we could know whether the number of applications has been almost exactly what the Ministry thought it would be. If that is so, will the Minister confirm that the number of applications has increased—I cannot work out the figure exactly in my head—by approximately 80 per cent. to 90 per cent.? Is that the case, or has the number of applications risen only slightly and by a smaller amount than 80 per cent. or 90 per cent.? We should know the position at the beginning of the debate in view of this unfortunate error, which I am sure we all understand.

Mr. Wells: Mr. Wellsrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall get very disorderly if we have two interventions at the same time.

Mr. Strang: I think we are in danger of making too much of what is a very minor and technical error. In essence, the Supplementary Estimates are estimates. If I am being asked to give a detailed statement on the latest position and on how matters might have changed in terms of the estimates, I am being asked to enter into a fairly prolonged statement. I do not see how that can be helpful to the House.

Mr. Wells: Does the phraseology in Subhead D6(1)
An unexpectedly high number of claims were submitted",
mean what it says or does it mean something quite different? I remember that some years ago a young policeman was sent to prison for fiddling his expenses. He had spent so much and he said he had spent it on one thing but he had spent it on another. The sum he had spent was correct but he was sent to prison because he had told a fib. I suggest that the phrase
An unexpectedly high number of claims
is a fib and that if the Minister were that young policeman he might have gone to prison.

Mr. Strang: I do not want to degenerate to that sort of level. Of course the statement in D6—incidentally, it is not being debated—is accurate. All that I am referring to is an error which, given that human beings produced the book, should be understandable and should be accepted by any reasonable Member.

Mr. Jopling: This matter should be cleared up. I must ask the Minister when the error was spotted. I am sorry that he should chose to snigger. This is an important matter. A document has been put before the House containing an error. Another book has been produced since the one we are debating was produced dated 13th February. Since then another one has been produced, with which we are also concerned, dated 4th March 1975. If this error was spotted, we must have an assurance that it was spotted only, shall we say, tonight. If not, the House would like an explanation of why


no warning was received when the subject of this debate was put down last Thursday.
Why was the House not informed? Why were not hon. Members who put their names to this matter informed privately? Surely that should have been one of the first things the Ministry should have done. It should have ensured that hon. Members were informed that the matter that they had raised for debate was erroneous. Are any other parts of pages 67 and 68 erroneous as well? I must ask when the matter was spotted and why it was not reported to the House, and particularly to hon. Members who raised the matter at an earlier stage.

Mr. Strang: I think that hon. Gentlemen are being a little unreasonable, but they may derive some satisfaction from this kind of exercise.
First, let me make it clear, in case it is not already clear, that what is being debated is not erroneous. The Supplementary Estimates still stand. They are not altered in any way. Secondly, I learned that there was a minor inaccuracy—that is all it is—in the note, which is not a sum of money, today. Thirdly, I intervened at the beginning to make this minor point because I thought that it would be helpful to hon. Gentlemen. I am sorry that it has not turned out that way.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to clarify the discrepancy in the description of applications. I hope that it will be for the best. At least, we know where we stand.
In considering the glasshouse or horticulture industry it is essential that the Government should make a competent decision whether they want to ensure a continuous industry in which planning and development can be allowed to take place when they are contemplating the problems now facing the industry.
Obviously the grant scheme under Subhead D1 is not particularly attractive as it stands because of the energy problem. I should like to illustrate this point with an example from my constituency. A glasshouse concern of five acres had a net pre-tax surplus of approximately

£20,000 in both 1973 and 1974. In 1975, subject to final audit, the figure is £2,000, and the projection for 1976 at the moment is a loss of £30,000. Therefore, when it comes to capital investment, that operator will not be particularly well pleased.
For that reason, I ask the Minister to consider the policy that he will adopt towards the glasshouse sector. In that five-acre unit the investment is in the region of £200,000. Therefore, the £20,000 return before the energy crisis was reasonable. Certainly £2,000 this year will be very notional.
It is important for the Minister to appreciate some of the problems concerned with marketing when contemplating whether capital grants are necessary to sustain this industry.
United Kingdom production is in the region of £100 million, which is a substantial amount of money. Imports into this country are about 124,000 tons, making a total United Kingdom consumption of about 240,000 tons.
The problem comes with the flexibility of the Dutch market where there is almost a spot market for tomatoes and the wholesaler is able to call up tomatoes at short order for the United Kingdom market. If conditions are right and if the Germans are not calling for these tomatoes, they can come in, but the wholesaler has paid for them. The United Kingdom grower supplies his tomatoes to the wholesaler on a certain basis and therefore is vulnerable to the input of tomatoes from the Continent. For this reason it is vitally important that tomatoes from the Continent are not priced unfairly through a competitive advantage of assistance such as a subsidy on interest or on oil or energy prices.
In considering the glasshouse picture it is necessary also to consider briefly the remainder of the cycle, because it is larger than merely tomatoes. A typical cycle is tomatoes in the summer, chrysanthemums in the autumn—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Member and the House. It the hon. Member will relate his tomatoes to capital grant, which is what we are discussing, it will be a great help.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your help. The position I am trying to establish is that the capital grant should be used by the


Government to create circumstances in which there can be fair competition throughout.
I suggest that capital grant can be used to enable the United Kingdom industry to take advantage of indigenous energy. I am referring not to oil but to natural gas. It seems to me that there is a case for assisting the industry to change to using natural gas as a means of heating. This fuel has substantial advantages for the glasshouse industry. It is more automatic, it needs fewer people to operate it, it has technical advantages in terms of maintenance of plant and lack of fallout on roof surfaces—factors which should be considered—and its use would assist the balance of payments problem. The oil bill for glasshouse heating last year was £23 million, and I suggest that any means of reducing that figure would be valuable to the country.
It is essential to ensure that the glasshouse industry stays in existence, and I ask the Government to provide assistance until 1st July when the next EEC scheme comes in. I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the Capital Grant Scheme which could come up under proposals agreed by the Common Market.
A shift to gas as a means of heating glasshouses would assist the industry, and further capital assistance should be provided to encourage research and development of strains of plants which will call for the use of less energy and give a heavier yield. The provision of capital grants in those areas would be of great help to the industry.

2.40 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I am sorry that the Minister thinks we are niggling in pursuing the question of the wording of Subhead D1. Although the mathematics may be right, if the verbiage is wrong it is wrong and that is the end of the matter. The Minister shows a lamentable arrogance in saying that we are not debating the other matter. We are discussing the whole issue and can debate anything we wish provided it is in the book. When he has been here a little longer, he will know that. It is simply convenient to lump certain matters together for debate. We are lucky that we have come on early rather than at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
I should declare an interest as a grower and a member of an agricultural co-operative. I want to speak partly about the grants to co-operatives under Subhead D11. I hope that the verbiage is right here since it refers to the increased uptake in the grants for buildings and fixed equipment. We are glad that there has been this increase, just as we are glad about the increase to which the Minister referred when we quibbled about his words just now, but all this increased uptake will totally waste taxpayers' money unless the Government arc willing to ease the industry over its current difficulties for the present four short months.
Totalling all the increases in this section which refer only to horticulture, unless the Government are prepared to offer parity with Holland we shall be in difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) hoped that there would be a transfer to gas from oil. In Holland the glasshouse area is adjacent to the natural gas field, and gas can be piped in very cheaply. That is not the case here, so we must continue on our more traditional lines.
As regards the uptake for the grubbing-up of old apples, what view do the Government take of the proposed EEC grants for future grubbing-up? Shall we take any real steps to get rid of the structural surpluses of apples? In the last two years we have made great strides in modernising our orchards. The Estimates partly reflect those grubbing-up grants. But the grants paid to British growers are much lower than comparable grants in Europe.
I hope that the Minister can deal with the points I have raised.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Many of the points that I wished to make have been raised already. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on putting some very pertinent questions. I am looking forward to the Minister's answers.
I feel strongly, as do probably most hon. Members who have spoken, that this debate is about the wrong subject and that we should be able to talk about oil. That is the burning question in the mind of every horticulturist at present. Nevertheless, as a taxpayer, as we probably all are and like the hon. Member


for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), I feel that all this grant money—the one grant is from the EEC, we know, but the others are national schemes—is money down the drain, and taxpayers are entitled to put these questions too if the industry is not to be given immediate assistance.
The story of the horticulture industry over the last decade has been one of remarkable success. I think most people would agree that it is now one of the most efficient industries in this country, if not in the world, even though we are not exactly blessed with the climate that some other parts of the world happen to have.
I should like to refer to the report of the National Glasshouse Energy Conference on 10th October of last year. One firm, Van Heyningen, one of whose directors I met recently, has a very new enterprise here, in part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Chichester. One of the directors relates that the firm operates some 45 acres of glass and that by the end of this year it will be 55 acres—although I doubt whether it will continue with that last expansion in view of the latest developments. All of this is devoted exclusively to the production of the long-season tomato crop. Of the 55 acres, 37½ acres have been built since 1970, the remainder having been built between 1964 and 1969. No doubt all of this was built with the aid of substantial grants of public money. In other words, some of it has already been committed in the figures before us.
In my constituency a similar thing has happened. It has been all in the last 10 years that new firms have come in, mainly from the Lea Valley, and some have expended about £500,000, perhaps up to £1 million, in new developments. All this is at risk. I was in a small nursery in my constituency only on Saturday. It is small compared with the enterprise that I have been talking about, but it has grown from half an acre to three acres. It was a thriving business until last year. This year it faces disaster.
We are trying to get from the Government some form of assistance. If it is not to be by way of an oil subsidy, it must be capital grant aid to enable these people to change over their systems. I agree entirely with the hon. Member

for Maidstone. I gather that gas will not be available until 1977. Some growers are turning to coal. They want guidance from the Ministry. Will some of this money be available for them to change over to different forms of heating? What is the policy? Is it the policy to let the horticulture industry go to the wall? If so, taxpayers' money has been thrown right down the drain.

Mr. Wells: I did not intend to say that gas was not available. I intended to say that gas in this country can never be as cheap as it is in Holland.

Mr. Ross: To compete.

Mr. Wells: Yes, because of the proximity of the Dutch glass industry to the supply of gas.

Mr. Ross: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The fact is, however, that we now have North Sea gas. I accept that it will not be as cheap as gas is in Holland, but my inquiries indicate that in any case, even if it were to be made available to the horticulture industry, certainly in my constituency it would not be available until 1977, so that we have two or three years to go if growers are not to continue heating with oil.
Some growers in my constituency have changed over to coal, but there is a need for guidance as to whether boilers that have been installed with the help of substantial grants, some of which are undoubtedly covered by the sums in the Estimates, are now wasted. Those boilers are of no use because they are using the wrong sort of fuel.
We want the Minister to give an assurance that the Government have this matter in mind and that they are prepared to look at some of the figures and see whether grants which have not been taken up in full cannot be transferred to enable growers to change to some other form of heating.

2.50 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on raising this matter so fully and succinctly. Happily his speech has left little for other hon. Members to say.
The message from the horticultural areas about the decision to do away with


the fuel subsidy is always the same. My own area, particularly East Bedfordshire where there are a large number of glasshouse growers, is a case in point. There are four months to the end of June, and the Government have put at risk virtually a whole industry. It is a question of growers going broke. We are told that this was a Cabinet decision. The mind boggles at a Cabinet, at a stage where this country is in a balance of payments crisis such as we currently have, deliberately bringing in an order to do away with a subsidy of this kind which must be a direct and wilful discouragement to the production of food.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member his passing reference to the subsidy. We must keep the debate in order and come to capital grants.

Mr. Hastings: It is my understanding that the capital grant is at stake over this question, and I am sure that that is the general impression within the horticulture industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been the first point that hon. Members have made in the debate. We want to know what is to be done for the next four months, and secondly, we want to hear the Government's view about digressive aid.
There is then the question of an alternative fuel. There has perhaps been some disagreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) about this matter. That only goes to show that this is a matter to which the Government and everyone else need to pay the closest attention in view of the appalling disadvantages and difficulties about the present fuel, which is overwhelmingly oil. I strongly believe after many months of correspondence with the gas board that gas is the best alternative and the only long-term encouragement under capital grant that the Government can effectively give to this industry. The Government must make clear what fuel policy they have, if any.
There is no question that the Dutch have an advantage of supplies of natural gas. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone that gas there will always tend to be cheaper. But there is no doubt either about the immense

advantage that the Dutch industry derives from this source of fuel. About 80 per cent. of Dutch growers are using natural gas. The Minister does not need me to tell him of the technical advantages of it to the grower—for instance, cleanliness, preheating efficiency and general efficiency are greater than for fuel oil.
I have a report to the National Farmers' Union from a successful British grower which demonstrates that given level costs natural gas is more effective than oil. If that is the case and if we can get gas at level costs before very long—and I think that we can when the Frigg and Brent gas fields begin to bear, which is expected in 1976–77 according to the gas board—this is the best future fuel. What plans do the Government have to deal with capital grants to provide the necessary pipelines and to make sure that burner conversion is generously granted? Can we hear something about that tonight?
In spite of the many questions I have put to the gas board—and I have had a number of courteous and helpful replies—the letters I have received have been shot through with phrases like "in due course" "some time ahead" and
unwise to encourage the industry to anticipate relief from the present energy problem through natural gas.
On the information I have, I must ask "Why not?"
I hope that the Minister will deal with this tonight. Unless he says something positive about the short term, until the end of June, unless he deals with the plans in the Common Market after that time and unless he has something constructive and positive to say about the long-term energy policy for horticulture, this Government will stand condemned in this matter as in so many others.

2.57 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We have had a most helpful debate. The tragedy is that it has come on so late when there have not been more hon. Members present to hear it and not so many representatives of the media to report it. That is perhaps inevitable at this hour.
I begin by referring to the difficulty under which we discuss this subject and to the Minister's helpful remarks at the beginning of the debate about the error


in the Estimates. I hope that he will set the record straight, as I am sure he would wish to do. We must ask for an assurance that there are no other errors in the horticulture section of the Estimates. If there are, I would be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he might tell us.
At what stage was the error discovered? I understand that it is the practice when these Estimates are published and an error is discovered for an erratum slip to be printed and included with the Estimates. We must ask the Minister for an assurance that this error has been discovered only today and that there was no time to print such an erratum slip.
The error puts an entirely new light on the D1 section of the Estimates. The Minister said that we were not talking about the matter involving the error. With respect, I say that we are. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are perfectly entitled to talk about these things. It would make the debate ludicrous if we were not to know the reasons for increases or decreases in the Estimates. I hope that the Minister will set aside the sort of remarks he made earlier and will not brush us aside and accuse us of raising trivialities.
These are matters about which the House has been extremely jealous. It is important that Ministers should correct errors of this sort. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, when he found out that an error had been made, instituted inquiries about the extent of the error, when it was found and whether it had been reported to Members. The hon. Gentleman was frank when we started this debate, and I hope that he will tell us all when he replies.
There can be no question that the theme behind this debate is the question of the impact of the oil crisis on the grants we are considering. I know that there are difficulties about raising these matters, and I shall do my utmost to keep within the rules of order, but it does no harm in the context of grants to the horticulture industry to point out what the President of the NFU said on the day of the announcement of the decision to end the oil subsidy. I quote from an NFU Press handout:
…it will mean that the financial positions of thousands of glasshouse growers will be

placed in jeopardy and many will be forced out of business altogether".
That is the background to this debate.
The decision which the Minister announced in the House on 20th February was made public a week after these Estimates were published. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Minister what the impact of that decision to discontinue the oil subsidy will be on these grants. The announcement was made after the Estimates were published and, therefore, it will have an effect on the uptake of the grants. I hope that the Minister will deal with this point and will not hide behind bogus points of procedure. It is important that he does not evade the issue. This is the first opportunity we have had to debate horticulture since the announcement of the decision and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not avoid the issue.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of the end of the subsidy on Subhead D11 on page 68 of the Estimates covering grants for the encouragement of co-operation in agriculture and horticulture. I have with me a Press statement issued on 26th February by Agricultural Co-operation and Marketing Services Limited, which is intimately concerned with the subject matter of Subhead D11. Mr. Jack Garcia, a director of that organisation and managing director of Farmers and Growers Industries Limited, said on that date:
This means that growers are unable to make long-term production and marketing plans and thus it undermines the whole concept of orderly marketing which the Government is supposed to be encouraging.
Mr. Garcia makes it absolutely clear that the Government's decision on the oil subsidy will have a shattering effect on the grants covered by Subhead D11. We must therefore have answers concerning the impact which the Government's decision has made and will make on the horticulture industry.
If the Government are totally unrepentant about the decision on oil subsidies, the Minister may be good enough to tell us how he thinks that the EEC will be able to help us in future. I know and he knows that at the moment the EEC is actively considering what can be done after 1st July to help the horticulture industry because of the difficulties arising out of the oil crisis. It is likely that


the EEC will shortly produce a report suggesting how it might help the industry. I hope that the Minister will give us this information, because it will make a big impact on the take-up of the grants. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us when he thinks that the EEC report on what will happen after 1st July will be published.
The Minister will also know that COPA —the European farmers' union—has proposed that over the next four years there should be a series of degressive subsidies with regard to oil costs. Here again, if this subsidy were to be introduced, as COPA has suggested, it would mean a huge difference in the take-up of grants in this country. It is very important that the Minister should tell us, and through us, the industry, what the Government's attitude is to COPA's proposal for degressive subsidies.
Because of the impact of the energy crisis it is also important that as soon as possible the horticulture industry should take advantage of any research that may be carried out in terms of new energy-saving techniques, and particularly new materials, in the glasshouse industry. As again I am sure the Minister knows, a good deal of research is going on on this topic in Europe. It is a matter about which I know the Commission in Brussels is particularly concerned. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he is satisfied that the maximum amount of research in energy-saving techniques for horticultural production is being pursued in this country.
Is the Minister satisfied that with these grants we are not running into the danger that the European Commission may be contemplating grants which may have the object of inducing farmers in the glasshouse industry to go out of production? It would be strange if our Government were to pay out these grants and then, before long, the European Commission were to suggest grants to encourage people in the horticulture industry to go out of production.
In the European context I should like to end on a matter which concerns me. Recently I have been reading a document headed "Stocktaking of the Common Agricultural Policy", produced

in Brussels on 26th February. I am sure the Minister will have read it, because it is one of the most vital current documents in the agricultural sector—which includes the horticultural sector.
In paragraph 26 on page 11, under the heading
Expansion of the Common Market to Agriculture,
I was a little alarmed to read these words:
More than this, it means that production must be located according to the principles of the optimum allocation of resources and the need for specialisation foreseen in Article 43 of the Treaty. Accordingly, it implies that in the context of the creation of a large market including, for example, northern regions and Mediterranean regions, there should be a division of labour reflecting the comparative advantage of such widely differing areas.
The proposals which the Commission sets out in that and other paragraphs seem to imply that various forms of agricultural production should be concentrated in areas in which the environment, climate and other factors give particular advantage to that type of production. It might be held to imply that the Commission's policy would be that tomatoes should be grown only where there is sunshine, which would cut out the need to grow them under glass.

Mr. Stephen Ross: There have been reports in the Press that Mr. Lardinois is not necessarily adopting that policy.

Mr. Jopling: I am always a little wary of what is reported in the Press as coming from some of the great and good men of the EEC. The extract I read is from a document which was produced within the last three weeks. I should like to know the Government's attitude to that proposal. It could be held that the Commission's policy might result in the total disruption of the British glasshouse industry.
This has been a helpful debate which has given us our first chance to discuss horticulture since the Government's shattering and disgraceful decision to end the oil subsidy four months before it was necessary to do so when other countries within the Community are still paying it. That is one of the most deplorable decisions that even this deplorable Government have made in the last miserable year.

3.13 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was kind enough to point out at the beginning of the debate that we could not discuss the Government's decision not to continue with the temporary oil subsidy. Notwithstanding that, hon. Gentlemen have in their usual ingenious way succeeded in referring to the decision. I hope that by way of introduction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and by linking my remarks closely to the capital grant schemes which are before us, I shall be allowed to make one or two brief comments on that subject.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked, reasonably, whether the capital grants would be available for alternative fuel systems. I am able to reassure him that that is so. The capital grants are also available for energy conservation investment, for example in double glazing.
Some hon. Gentlemen speak as though the glasshouse industry equalled the whole of the horticulture industry. I do not want to underestimate the problems of the glasshouse industry, but it must be pointed out that that industry is a fraction, albeit an important fraction, of the total horticulture industry.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) asked me to estimate the effect of the fuel oil subsidy decision on the future uptake of capital grants. I am glad he referred to the future uptake of capital grants, because there can be no question of the Estimates which are before us having been affected by this decision since they were compiled too early to be influenced by the Government's announcement. The effect in future will depend on whether hon. Gentlemen are correct in their sweeping assertions of the way in which the industry will be wiped out. If it is to be wiped out, there will be a reduction in applications for grant, but I do not think that that is the case. The increase in energy prices makes it more advantageous and important that growers invest in equipment and in systems which reduce energy costs. For that reason there may be an increase in the uptake of grant.
Hon. Gentlemen succeeded in alluding to a number of matters which are not strictly related to the question of capital grants but perhaps with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is not up to the Minister to tell the House what is and what is not in order in relation to capital grants. That is a matter for the Chair and for the Chair alone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The Minister was referring to a ruling given by my predecessor on this subject. Personally I must wait to hear how the debate develops.

Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)—or perhaps it was another hon. Gentleman—mentioned Romanian apples. For some months in the year these apples are subject to quotas. It is also the Case—

Mr. Wells: It was I who raised the matter and I was not talking about quotas. The Minister must begin to learn about his Department. I spoke of the grubbing-up grants. I used that phrase more than once. I am not talking about quotas. Quotas have nothing to do with capital grants. Grubbing-up grants have everything to do with capital grants.

Mr. Strang: I was referring not to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) but to the hon. Member for Chichester, and I thought I said so.
The hon. Member for Maidstone asked about our attitude to grubbing grants for apples. No such proposals are currently under consideration. If proposals are put forward, our attitude will depend on how they are financed. If all or most of the cost is to be borne by FEOGA, and not by the national Exchequer, the efficacy of the grants will need careful consideration.
The Commission has not yet pronounced on a long-term Community policy for horticulture. Any reports in the Press are speculation. The hon. Gentleman will not expect the Government to comment on Commission proposals before they are put before us. We expect them to be put forward very


soon. We hope that they will be, because if we are to stay in the Community—and we must plan on the basis that we might—we must examine the proposals as soon as possible.
We are still maintaining quota restrictions on Romanian tomatoes between May and October. In the other months they are subjected to the normal duties which we apply to imports of this nature.
I come to the actual subject under debate, the Supplementary Estimates for the Horticulture Capital Grant Scheme. I should like to make clear the matter of the error to which. I referred at the beginning of the debate. My attention was drawn this afternoon to the error in the explanation—not the figures—of Subhead D1. I have no reason to believe that there are any other errors in the document. We must all be very conscious that the capital grant schemes are all new schemes which started only at the beginning of last year. If we are to understand the level of uptake, the level of applications for the grants, we must look at what happened under the previous Horticulture Capital Grant Scheme. Under that scheme, when the Conservatives were in power, the money ran out and no applications for grant were entertained after July 1973.

Mr. Nelson: I believe that when that grant was introduced the amount was set, and that the announcement in July 1973 was to the effect that applications which had been granted and others which were in the pipeline were sufficient to use up that amount. Therefore the Government —I do not care what their political colour was—were doing no more than was proper by saying "At this point we must take no more applications for the moneys allotted by Parliament." Is not that correct?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman may put it as he likes, but what mattered to the industry was that after July 1973 horticulturists could not apply for the grants. One of the factors which has influenced the rate of uptake of the grants starting at the beginning of January 1974 is that there was a period immediately before that when the industry was not able to apply for capital grants.
As regards the Supplementary Estimates, the increase in the co-operative

grants mentioned under Class III, Vote 1, Subhead D11, is accounted for by increased payments to co-operatives in the horticultural sector. The increase is partly the result of higher costs of works and facilities but in the main it follows a considerable increase in the number of applications submitted. This upsurge was directly linked to the uncertainty in the industry about the future of co-operative grants in horticulture following the demise of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme.
The Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme is important in the sense that it covers capital grants. We have implemented this scheme to comply with the requirements of the EEC farm modernisation directive. That directive lays down that any national schemes must not pay a rate of grant on capital projects higher than the FHDS, which is the farm modernisation directive scheme. Under the rules of the directive we have had to make available special rates of grant to farmers and growers who undertook to carry out plans to improve their businesses so that they would be capable, after improvement, of providing an income per man employed equal to average incomes outside agriculture.
The scheme contained a number of features which were new to our grant arrangements. We were thus in the dark regarding the response that the new scheme would attract. Hon. Members with experience of the scheme, or of making applications for grants under the scheme, will appreciate that as things stand it is complicated. Many producers will welcome the Government's efforts to try to simplify it. The complexity arises because of the criteria which the Community lays down must apply to the scheme.
The original provision of £100,000 was made not as a firm estimate or as a token but to indicate that we expected a certain number of payments to be made during the financial year 1974–75. A paradoxical situation arose. For a number of reasons our estimate of interest in the scheme was exaggerated. We think that the novelty of the scheme and the need to undertake a plan of investment, coupled with uncertainty in the industry, were the main reasons why some farmers and growers held back.
Although by last autumn few development plans had been approved, an untypically high proportion involved horticultural or partly horticultural businesses, sometimes with large acreages and a very high level of expenditure.
Nearly half of the planned expenditure was for horticulture, against a more usual proportion of one-seventh. This was no doubt attributable to the winding-up through lack of funds of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme in July 1973. It was because of this that we foresaw the need for a Supplementary Estimate. Hon. Members may be interested to know that, in the event, the amount of investment which will qualify for grant in 1974–75 is less than we expected last autumn. Our grant payments are likely to be in the region of the £100,000 originally estimated. We hope that when the new scheme has settled in and the pattern of the way work under the farm development plans proceeds, closer estimating will be possible.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Chichester that these estimates of public expenditure represent the total Exchequer commitment. The system operates by our then claiming our entitlement under FEOGA. In the case of the FHDS this runs at 25 per cent., so that in effect these figures are inclusive of the FEOGA contribution.

Mr. Hastings: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his remarks. I apologise for taking him back, but three if not four of my hon. Friends specifically raised the possibility of using natural gas as an alternative fuel and asked about the Government's view or policy on it. The hon. Gentleman said that grant would be available for alternative fuels. That is not quite good enough. What will be done by the Government to ensure that supplies of natural gas are available quickly? What emphasis will be placed on this with the gas board? What is the view of the Government on natural gas as an alternative? There is a crisis in energy, and we need an answer to this.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, that the decision as to what source of energy a producer uses must in the last analysis be his individual

decision. Circumstances vary throughout the country, and these are bound to influence individual producers.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether the gas will be available. Natural gas is not available on the scale that we all want to see. It is not just a matter of supplying the horticulture industry. The whole of British industry wants to see more natural gas coming on stream.
The hon. Gentleman also asks what the Government are doing to bring pressure to bear on the gas board to make more natural gas available. I can assure him that, just as it is in the Government's interest to get North Sea oil on stream at a rate equivalent to our consumption as quickly as possible, it is in our overall national interest to increase the supply of natural gas coming into the national grid, and every effort is being made to bring Frig, which is the major field involved, into production as soon as possible. But I should be straying too far out of order if I digressed at length on the wider energy issues raised by the question. Technically this debate is about the capital grant schemes, but hon. Gentlemen have taken this opportunity to raise wider points about the horticultural industry—

Mr. Stephen Ross: The question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) is very important. It was on the advice of the Ministry's own technical advisers that the expansion in horticulture with the use of oil burners took place. We want to know what the same technical people advise now. In my constituency growers with many acres of glass were driven to use oil. That is the point I want to make.

Mr. Strang: It is a fact that the advice given by previous Governments on the use of oil has turned out to be mistaken. By and large it is the arguments deployed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the National Union of Mineworkers that have turned out to be valid rather than those of the pundits writing in the capitalist Press.
The advisory services attach the highest priority—I am sure hon. Members will find that this is so if they talk to the field officers and the producers—to advising producers on how they can save energy and how they can use energy more effectively. We cannot tell the producers


what the price of oil will be in four years' time. It would be misleading to try to do so. The fact is that we can give them the best advice available. We can advise them on current energy prices and we can advise them of all the research into energy-saving devices and techniques, but at the end of the day these decisions must be taken by the producer himself on the basis of his assessment of what is likely to be in his best interests.
Finally I assure hon. Members—this should not be necessary, but in view of some of the comments that were made by at least one hon. Member I must make the position clear—that the Government see a continuing and important future for the horticulture industry. We need its production. We cannot allow a situation to arise where the British horticulture industry disappears. There is no possibility of the Government standing by and allowing that to happen.

Orders of the Day — SHERIFFS (WIDOWS' PENSIONS)

3.38 a.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Despite the lateness of the hour I am delighted that the Consolidated Fund Bill has given me the opportunity to raise the anomalies and the unjust situation which has persisted for many years regarding sheriffs' widows' pensions.
Although a whole class of people are affected by this measure, I make no secret of the fact that my awareness of the seriousness of the situation arises from the representations which have been made by one of my constituents—namely, the widow of the late Sheriff Duncan of the Lothians and Peebles. Sheriff Duncan sat on the bench for almost 15 years. He died in 1955. For the past 20 years my constituent and people in a similar position to her have campaigned against the injustice that at present exists. Although they have won the sympathy and, no doubt, the understanding of successive Governments, they have not received any form of action to meet the problem that faces them. They are clearly concerned not merely with their own particular circumstances but with the principle that is involved. I shall outline it as shortly as I can.
First, there is the problem of the inequality that exists between the pensions to which sheriffs' widows are entitled compared with similar judicial colleagues south of the border. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, even where salaries are comparable, pensions have until fairly recently been determined on a different basis, to the detriment of those north of the border.
The first problem is quite straight forward. It would be accepted by most people that a Scottish sheriff is comparable to an English county court judge. Indeed, the Grant Committee, in paragraph 407, when considering the sheriff courts in Scotland said:
county court judges … are obviously comparable … to … sheriffs-substitute. … The civil work of the sheriff courts is certainly not of a lower standard than that of the county courts and the criminal work of the sheriffs is in our view more important than the civil work.
The position of sheriffs is comparable in terms of responsibility, seniority and general workload with county court judges in all respects but one—namely, financial. For the purposes of the debate, I am concened with the financial aspect relating to pensions.
We see alarming and persistent differences. I should like to refer the House and the Minister to a letter from the Civil Service Department dated 22nd May 1973 in which the gentleman in charge of superanuation points out that the widow of a sheriff at Edinburgh, one of the heavier sheriff's loads, who died in 1973 with 14¼ years' service would be entitled to a pension of £931, whereas the widow of a county court judge—a judge, as was pointed out by the Grant Committee, of comparable status and responsibility—who died in the same year with the same service would receive a pension of £1,543.75. That is not quite double, but getting on that way. Obviously a serious difference exists.
I do not suggest that the emoluments, including pensions, of the Scottish judiciary should be comparable in all respects with those presently obtained by their colleagues south of the border. If one were considering the more senior members of the judiciary south of the border in the English courts where the population workload and the amount of litigation are greater, one would not


suggest that the financial emoluments should be the same. But judges of the seniority of sheriffs in Scotland and of the county court in England are comparable. Therefore, the pension entitlement should be the same. This is a matter of more general policy.
I turn now to the specific anomaly which has been recognised by successive Governments, although they have failed to make any allowance to meet it. Even in a situation where a sheriff had the same salary as an English judge of any particular type, until 1961 the position was that the pension entitlement of his widow or of himself was worked out and established on a totally different basis, to the detriment of the Scottish sheriff's widow. That was the situation until 1961.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that in 1961, by the passing of the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act, that anomaly was recognised, but only for the future. The pension entitlements of widows of sheriffs who died subsequent to 1961 were established and determined on the same basis north and south of the border. That was not a retrospective measure. It applied only to sheriffs who died subsequent to 1961.
The constituent to whom I have referred and others in a similar class whose husbands died before 1961 in no way benefited from that legislation. Indeed, they were specifically excluded by it.
The basis on which the law was changed in 1961 was not a trivial matter or of little importance. Several significant differences were met by the 1961 Act, but, because it was not retrospective, certain differences still exist for the widow of the late Sheriff Duncan and others in a similar position.
First, there is the simple fact that the entitlement of the widow of a sheriff who died before 1961 began only if he had served 10 years before his death. If he had served for 10 years his pension was established on the basis of approximately one-eighth of what his income would have been. It made no difference prior to 1961 whether he served 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14 years. Only if he had served for 15 years did the proportion of his salary that was taken into account rise from one-eighth to one-quarter.
The late Sheriff Duncan can be used as an example of the anomalous situation. He had served on the Bench for 14¼ years at the time of his death in 1955. In other words, his widow missed by a mere nine months the entitlement to have her pension reckoned on the basis of 15 years' service.
There is a further anomaly that was met by the 1961 Act, but its provisions were not made retrospective. Prior to the 1961 Act, the income that was taken into account when determining the pension was worked out on the basis of the average of the five years preceding the sheriff's retirement or death. That might not seem—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is going rather wide. This is a very narrow debate, based on the increase related to the category of widow which he has raised as the subject for debate. We want to avoid getting into comparability over a wide spectrum, which I rather fear the hon. Member is elaborating in his discourse. If he keeps to the narrow point of the debate he will be in order, because that is strictly related to what we are debating.

Mr. Rifkind: I fully accept your ruling. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point at issue is whether the increase in pension to which sheriffs' widows are entitled has been met by the circumstances that I have outlined and whether the increase is sufficient. I am pointing out that but for the anomalous situation to which I have referred the problem would not have arisen. The problem which I am putting to the House relates to the level of pension presently received by one of the recipients to whom the supplementary estimate refers. To this extent, I submit that the points that I am making are relevant and within the narrow confines to which you have referred me. I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you are indicating that my previous remarks were out of order, or were in danger of becoming so. I should be grateful for some indication of the position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that strictly speaking they probably were out of order, but they can be treated as coming to the point which the hon. Member wishes to make.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall take that very much to heart.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope not too literally to heart.

Mr. Rifkind: Certainly not.
The point that I am putting to the Minister is that because of the rules that existed, and still exist, the level of pension to which the class of person to whom I have referred is entitled is an anomaly that was not met by the 1961 legislation, and therefore the level of pension that she now receives is far less than many of us would respectfully suggest it ought to be.
As a result of the circumstances which I have outlined, when the husband of the individual to whom I have referred died in 1955 she received a pension of the grand sum of £169. That has been increased to the grand sum of £443. But for the anomalies to which I have referred, it would be about £1,200 per annum. There is a large difference here, and it is a difference and an injustice which has been recognised in the past but which has not been met by successive Governments.
Successive Governments have argued that, although they had great sympathy with the problem, any solutions would require retrospective action, and that has not been thought desirable. While the whole House would normally disapprove of any measure which retrospectively removed a former privilege or advantage, different considerations apply to retrospective measures to improve a citizen's position. The reference in the Grant Committee's Report to this very case shows the length of time that the problem has been before Ministers. It said that the evils in this case would not be repeated after 1961 but that it could make no recommendation to meet the problem.
While successive Governments have recognised the problem here—had they not recognised it, the 1961 legislation would not have been necessary—until now they have not been prepared to take the simple and non-controversial action which would be required to meet it. We are concerned only with a small sum and a small group of individuals. Even if the Minister cannot give an

assurance tonight, I hope that he will tell us that the Government, by retrospective action or possibly by an ex gratia payment, will end a long-standing source of considerable grievance.

3.53 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Even if I wanted to become involved in a debate about the differences between the salaries and pensions of the judiciary in England and the sheriffs in Scotland, I am sure that the Chair would not permit it. However, I am not aware of any complaint by the sheriffs about the pensions and salaries negotiated on their behalf. I am sure that if they were not satisfied and wanted comparability with England. representations would have been made a long time ago.
If I speak briefly on this matter, that does not mean that I do not appreciate the serious concern expresed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). As he said, Section 20 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907, as amended by the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950, provided for sheriffs-substitute a pension of a quarter of their average salary over the last five years of service where the period of service was not less than ten years and a third where the period of service was not less than 15 years. However, these provisions were changed by the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Section 3(3) of that Act provides for a maximum pension of half of the last annual salary where the period of service is 20 years or more. Where service is less than 20 years, that Act also provides for a pension to be paid to cover the whole of the service—that is, every year, and not grouped into 10 and 15 years as previously. A pension is now payable after five years service equal to fifteen-eightieths of the last annual salary. Where the service exceeds five years but is less than 10 years, the pension payable is fifteen-eightieths plus one-eightieth for each completed year exceeding five years. Where the period exceeds 10 years but is less than 20 years, the pension payable is one-quarter plus one-fortieth for each completed year exceeding 10 years. Perhaps I should point out that this Act also stipulates that a sheriff must retire when he reaches the age of 72.
The Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950, Section 2(1) and (2), provided a lump sum in addition to the personal pension and equal to twice the amount of the personal pension. Further, it provided for a widow's pension of one-third of the personal pension. This was paid for by a deduction from the lump sum at retiral of an amount equal to the annual amount of the personal pension. Since then, the Administration of Justice Act 1973, Section 10, as amended by the Judicial Pensions (Widows' and Children's Benefits) Regulations 1974, gives existing sheriffs the opportunity of uprating the widow's pension from one-third to one half with the option of paying contributions at 3 per cent. per annum from salary or by lump sum deduction at retiral. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, none of the provisions to which I have referred is retrospective. Therefore, in that sense, they certainly do not have any effect on the particular case which has been raised under this Vote.
Turning to the particular case, the details as explained by the hon. Gentleman are correct. The sheriff died on 25th December 1954, and he failed by nine months to qualify for a pension entitlement above that of one-quarter of his average salary. At the date of his death the sheriff had served for 14 years and three months. Therefore, as I said, he thus failed by nine months to qualify for the larger pension.
Perhaps I should correct some of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman, because my information is that the pensions awarded to Mrs. Duncan on her own account and on account of the three children were based on 10 years' service only. All this obviously the hon. Gentleman accepts. Mrs. Duncan in fact received a lump sum of £1,687 plus a pension of £170 for herself and £128 for her three children. These pensions have since been increased under the Pensions Increase Acts, and Mrs. Duncan now receives £517·49.
We are aware that over the years—and this case has gone on for 15 years—Mrs. Duncan has expressed some dissatisfaction with the pension. Nothing in the estimates we are discussing tonight can do anything to alleviate the problem of which Mrs. Duncan complains.
Over the past 11 years this case has been considered by various Ministers including the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions. The case has therefore had every consideration. In 1967 it was put to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration just after he was appointed, but he decided that such a case was outwith his jurisdiction. The case has been twice considered by the Treasury, but on each occasion the verdict was that the pensions awarded to Mrs. Duncan and her children were the amounts allowable by statutes and that there was no authority under which higher awards could be made.
The Grant Committee considered the question of retrospection and in its consideration a specific case was before them. Although no name was attached to that case it was the case of Mrs. Duncan. The report said
The defects of the older pension scheme are exemplified in a particular case which has been urged upon our attention.
That was the case of Mrs. Duncan. The report continues:
The sheriff substitute died, having completed just under fifteen years' service. The pensions paid to his dependants were calculated as though he had served for only ten years. They were also related to his average salary over the five years preceding retirement, which, in an inflationary period, was substantially lower than his last annual salary. The pension scheme under the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961 ensures that the evils that arose in this particular case will not recur, though of course, not being retrospective, it did not apply to a pension already being paid. It was put to us that something should be done about such hard cases surviving from the pre-1961 pension scheme, but we would find it difficult to recommend retrospective legislation for this purpose and we make no recommendation.
I am aware that what I have said tonight gives little comfort to the hon. Member for Pentlands and a great deal less to Mrs. Duncan. However, we are bound by the conditions of the previous pension scheme under which Sheriff Duncan served and the conditions that were applied as part of his terms of employment. Therefore with the greatest regret I must intimate to the hon. Member that it would be dishonest of me if I were to pretend otherwise than that there is no likelihood of any change being made in Mrs. Duncan's present position. I am


sure that it would be wrong in such an emotional case to give false hopes. I state categorically that I am unable to give any hope for any alteration in the situation. I trust that the hon. Member will accept that statement in the knowledge that I regret having to make it.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the Minister for his frankness. Given that both the Grant Committee and he recognise the evils, as the Grant Committee put it, that have arisen because of the pre-1961 situation, may I ask why, notwithstanding the Committee's views, the Minister is so reluctant even to consider the possibility either of retrospective legislation or of some form of ex gratia payment?

Mr. Ewing: The answer is perfectly obvious. The case has been examined over many years, by Ministers more senior than I in Governments of both parties. The have found that neither retrospective legislation nor an ex gratia payment could be applied. The case has been examined by practically every Minister from the Prime Minister downwards and by the Parliamentary Commissioner, although he found that the case was outside his jurisdiction. It has been looked at by Treasury Ministers on two occasions. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there is no change in the basic situation. It would, therefore, be wrong of me to hold out hopes. I regret to have to say that I do not see any likelihood of a change in the situation that would act to Mrs. Duncan's benefit.

Orders of the Day — CONCORDE

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Oscar Murton): Before I call the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), may I say that I understand he has been apprised by letter of the fact that there are certain difficulties in raising in the exact manner he wished to the development of Concorde. He should confine himself to matters relating rather to the purchase of that aircraft.

4.7 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I understand the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to stick to the rather narrow ruling and avoid going into the pros and cons of

whether we should build Concorde. I hope not to have much difficulty in sticking to those guidelines.
I apologise to the Minister for keeping him here at this unusual hour. I realise that because I choose to pursue this subject at this time he perhaps is left with rather less choice in the matter. Since I know that he and I will be on our respective benches in Committee at half-past ten today I hope he will forgive me for continuing to pursue a subject in which he will realise I have taken some interest.
In dealing with this question of the increase of the dividend capital of the British Airways Board it is clear that the position of British Airways, financial and otherwise, must be affected by the introduction of Concorde. I will relate my remarks to Concorde and to the progress of the aircraft as an aircraft with an airline rather than to the production mechanism. The first point I want to make is that Concorde and British Airways enjoy a wide—I was going to say overwhelming—measure of support on both sides of the House. They have done for many years, and I have no reason to think that they will not continue so to do.
Nearly four years ago the Secretary of State for Industry and I went to the United States at a time when the opposition to the operation of Concorde by British Airways and Air France and other airlines in, to and through North America was viewed with almost total hostility in the United States. The battles which the right hon. Gentleman and I fought on that occasion were perhaps a preview of the continuing battles which Concorde is facing and will have to face in the livery of British Airways until the public of the world realise that Concorde is here to stay.
It is perhaps worth reminding myself that I stand here seeking to pursue the successful development of the aircraft into airline service on behalf of a very large number of people—not only those who work in the factories, but the thousands of people who work for British Airways and whose future is tied up with the success or otherwise of the aircraft. On the production side, it is not easy always to realise how difficult it is to help people who seem intent on hitting themselves on the head. On Friday I


tried to obtain information from the British Aircraft Corporation. Contact with the senior management at Weybridge proved almost impossible because the switchboard had been taken over by the work force. I hope that this phase through which Concorde and BAC are passing will be shortlived.
I regard as encouraging the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade is present rather than a Minister from the Department of Industry, because it shows that we have passed through the production argument and are now on the trade argument—the introduction of an aircraft into commercial service. The fact that it is the Department of Trade which is as concerned with Concorde as the Department of Industry is not of insignificance to those who have followed this aircraft's development.
I hope to say a few words of praise for those in British Airways who have consistently and faithfully worked towards the day, which we hope will not be long delayed, when the airline has the aircraft in service, and a word of praise in passing to the large number of unseen people, many of them in the Minister's Department and in the Department of his predecessors, who have shown genuine faith and vision to the point where the aircraft is about to go into airline service.
I have spoken recently to Captain James Andrews, the general manager of British Airways' flight technical services. He has spent half his time for the last 10 years on working towards the period early next year when we hope that the massive investment by the British taxpayer will be converted into an investment by British Airways in the future of its airline. There is quite a long way to go yet.
I want to turn now to the problems which British Airways will face—and, therefore, the manufacturers will face—before the airline is able to put Concorde into service to North America, Australia and Japan via the Soviet Union. I believe that by this time next year the problems of routing will have been overcome and the certificate of airworthiness will have been granted.
In spite of the anguish that has been expressed over many years, I believe that Concorde is just another aeroplane and that British Airways has to go through

the normal procedures leading up to and through the granting of the certificate of airworthiness. That is something that we tend to forget in the enormous hiatus caused by the development of the aircraft over the years—by all the problems which have surrounded it, and which have been put around it—I stress that—by people. Ultimately it is an aeroplane, to be bought and operated by an airline and put into service by that airline and to fly passengers in much the same way as any airline introduces any new aircraft.
I have been looking back at the British Airways—or, as it then was, the BOAC —involvement in the Concorde programme. It would be churlish to pretend that everybody in British Airways has been a rabid enthusiast for Concorde ever since the inception of the programme. That would be untrue. But I do not believe that now is the time for any recriminations; the objective now is to look forward and to say a word for all those people in British Airways who have shown enormous faith in the future of this aeroplane and the future of their airline with the aircraft.
I have in front of me the Press release put out by BOAC on 25th May 1972, and I want to quote one sentence from what Mr. Keith Granville—the then Chairman of BOAC—said:
Concorde will be a brilliant addition to the BOAC fleet. In partnership with our big subsonic jets, Concorde will keep BOAC and Britain in the lead in world civil aviation.
That is what it was all about, and that is what it is all about. But that statement and that event—the ordering of the aircraft by BOAC—not surprisingly drew together all the many opponents who, for their various reasons, have always hoped —and still hope—to prevent British Airways from flying Concorde, and particularly from flying Concorde into the United States.
For that reason I want to pay a compliment also to the American Federal Aviation Administration, which has always kept a clear head and has steadfastly refused to be badgered and bullied by emotion in the way that it has sought to evaluate the real, as opposed to the supposed, effects of Concorde on the long-suffering citizens of the United States, and particularly those who live near major airports. Anybody who has visited the United States and seen and heard the


conditions under which many people residing near major airports have to live would have to be a hard person indeed if he were not sympathetic to their problems.
The recent report—the environmental impact statement—produced by the FAA is a fair and straightforward assessment of the lack of problems which Concorde will present to people in the United States. I know that the hearings which are due to be held next month under the guidance of the Environmental Protection Agency will be influenced by many voices, but I hope that the sound common sense and reason put forward by the FAA will be the prevailing voice when the hearings are completed.
There is bound to be trouble from certain people in New York. It cannot be avoided. Many people have been girding their loins for years almost relishing the battle ahead. I refer back to the meetings that the Secretary of State for Industry and I had in New York and Washington in 1971. The Port of New York Authority at that time was very much aware of the problems which the then fall in air traffic presented to the economy of New York. I recall the spokesman for the PNYA saying words to the effect that anybody who had studied the history of transport and the history of cities and looked at Carthage or Tyre knew that no port, great city or great centre of commerce had a God-given right to remain indefinitely as a commercial leader in the world unless it took steps to make sure that it could cope with current conditions.
The people in New York who seek to prevent Concorde entering commercial service with British Airways should ask themselves whether they are fully aware of the damage that might be done to the economy of that great city if steps were taken deliberately to exclude supersonic aircraft from the port of New York.
The Minister will perhaps recall what happened in Chicago when the jet aircraft was being introduced. The people who lived near Midway Airport sought to have jet aircraft banned from the airport. As a consequence, the new O'Hare Airport was built in Chicago for jet aircraft. Within 18 months the people who had successfully fought to prevent the jets using Midway formed themselves into a campaign to brings the jets back

to Midway, but they were too late. The economy in that region of Chicago had been decimated. I have reason to believe that the fate of New York as a major gateway could go the same way if the opposition to Concorde manifested itself in a ban.
I have turned out of my files a letter from Mr. Shaffer, the Administrator of the FAA, dated 31st July 1972 replying to my letter in which I asked for information about the Chicago Midway and O'Hare saga. In a footnote in his own handwriting Mr. Shaffer said:
The Mayor of Chicago is meeting with all airline presidents on 1st August to encourage them to schedule more jet services at Midway.
It is often attractive to stand up and make a lot of noise about supposed environmental horrors, or any aspect of life that can attract a headline, but the people who do that should be aware that their actions can have serious economic repercussions and that they might not be thanked two, five or 10 years later for what they have done.
Concorde has acquired a number of enemies over the years, some powerful, some not so powerful. In this country we have had a ragbag of people who have sought over the years to take every opportunity to denigrate the aircraft. They have even gone so far as to go to the United States to give interviews on television and to give evidence to Senate Committees to publicise their well-known views. But some—I think particularly of Mr. Wiggs and Andrew Wilson of The Observer—have been prone to exaggeration. When Concorde finally enters service next year we shall look back at the super-exaggerations and we shall probably finish up thanking those people. They went on for so long and so often, and often were so wrong, that in the end they will be seen to have done more good than harm to those of us who have always been prepared to look slightly further forward than the day after tomorrow.
We have had bias from many sources, particularly from the BBC. I had a letter in my files from Mr. Charles Curran dated 3rd April 1972 replying to a letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I had sent him complaining bitterly about some of the comments made in a television programme about Concorde.
One point I took up with the BBC related to a passage in the broadcast where Mr. Geoffrey Holmes, a well-known antinoise campaigner—and rightly so—stated that Concorde would be equivalent to 10 707s landing simultaneously. I objected strongly to that statement, and Mr. Curran replied to me on 3rd July. Just 48 hours later there was a report in the Daily Express quoting Mr. Geoffrey Holmes again. On that occasion Mr. Holmes said:
We took 27 aircraft readings and Concorde was the quietest. I was surprised and pleased.
But the damage had been done. The BBC had broadcast round the world the supposed environmental damage caused by noise and the pollution Concorde was to cause.
All these problems have had to be faced by manufacturers and by British Airways as they come up to the final hurdles. The final hurdles will no doubt be put in the way of the aircraft by people like Mr. Wolff, Mr. Stein, and others who have been at it for years. I do not think there is much use in wasting much time on that sort of person. They are political pygmies who seem to work on the basis of "Don't confuse me with facts. I have made up my mind." Mr. Wolff was quoted in The Times on 5th March 1975 as being a "republican congressman" and in the Daily Telegraph on the same day as a "New York democrat". It is worth putting on record that the following report appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 9th March:
A spokesman for Mr. Lester Wolff, a New York Democrat in the House of Representatives said: 'We will bitch, moan, scream and do everything conceivable' to keep Concorde out.
The article continued:
Mr. Wolff is a well-known Anglophobe given to appearing at Press conferences with IRA apologists.
That is the level of criticism which can be expected from such people in the weeks ahead.
People who represent marginal constituencies near airports inevitably see Concorde as a welcome target at which they can point their barbed darts. I am tempted to feel that the lower the majority the higher the noise level of complaint. But these people should realise that Concorde is happening; that British Airways will be flying the air-

craft next year in commercial service; that it has eight crews training at Filton, Bristol and that it is no use any longer seeking, by making a lot of noise, to pretend that Concorde will go away and that British Airways will not operate the plane. It will. Just like chewing gum, it is here, and it is here to stay.
British Airways will introduce its first commercial flight to the Middle East in a comparatively few months. I pay tribute to the Gulf States in particular for the help and encouragement they have given British Airways to enable our national flag carrier to introduce a supersonic Concorde service at the earliest opportunity. The first flights to the Middle East will be part of the route to Melbourne, Australia. The route details have not been finally worked out, but people who have been flying to Australia in the fastest time of 24 hours, but on average in 30 hours, in subsonic aircraft will be able to do the journey in 13½ hours.
We look forward to the introduction by British Airways of Concorde services to Tokyo across the USSR. This will take time. I imagine that the release by the Russians of satisfactory landing rights may well not be unconnected with the development of their own supersonic aircraft, in the tradition of capitalist countries. I think particularly of the way in which the American Government handled the introduction of the Britannia 312. I suppose that it is just another of the inevitable obstacles that pioneers must face.
The Middle East, Australia and trans-Siberian routes are all important, but for British Airways profitably to operate Concorde it will need landing rights in North America, particularly in New York. I hope that that great city will not opt out of the future by removing itself from the supersonic cities list.
I have no doubt that the results of the research will be presented by the Minister's Department at the forthcoming hearings in New York and Washington. Four years of research by American, British, French and Russian scientists have proved that, in the words of the recently published report, the pollution damage is
so slight as to be imperceptible".
I hope that in a country which is not blessed entirely with pollution-free cities


or crime-free streets Concorde will not be subjected to any unfair tactics in the coming months.
There are people who want British Airways to fail, people who, having been in business for some years, do not want our national flag carrier successfully to introduce Concorde services into the United States. I have been wondering how Pan American or TWA might write their advertising copy when they have only subsonic aircraft. Will they say "Fly the slow line"?
One can understand the feelings of airlines with only jumbo jets to fly, faced with competition by a plane which not only gets there in half the time but has so many other advantages to offer to the customer. What is the pleasure in waiting in a customs hall clamouring for baggage when one could leave later, arrive earlier, and not have to wait with 400 other people off the same subsonic jet? It is obvious why there are good reasons for people to oppose British Airways' introduction of Concorde into the United States. It is coming. Iran Air advertised its first transatlantic air service in the New York Times. It spoke of starting with its present fleet of aircraft, going on to jumbo jets, and, within two years, flying Concorde. It is sufficiently confident and determined to advertise in the New York Times.
From the British Airways' point of view it is clear that Concorde will present massive competition to the non-supersonic airlines. The fact that Concorde flies above the wind means that it will be an outstandingly good time keeper. Transatlantic times will be much easier to schedule. Plus or minus five minutes is likely to be the order of the day since a supersonic airliner will be able to overcome the problem of head winds.
There is another reason why British Airways will benefit from Concorde. Concorde is a new development and an enormously expensive aircraft. If we consider the effect of its capital cost, the obvious reaction is to say that it will severely affect airlines' finances. Anybody who studies civil aviation knows that it will be a long time before any aircraft manufacturer builds the next generation of civil aircraft. There is nothing on the horizon now. This means that the life of Concorde and of its derivatives will be prolonged enormously in comparison with

that of previous civil aircraft. This will be of considerable benefit to airlines' finances in the years ahead. Britain and France will start off with an aircraft which is enormously superior in marketing terms. Concorde has real advantages which are neither appreciated nor apparent.
The British manufacturers have provided a good pedigree for Concorde. It is significant that recently the BAC 1–11 and the VC 10 were certified for 60,000 hours' flying time without major modifications. Concorde's stablemates thus have a unique record.
I praise all those in British Airways and in the aircraft manufacturing companies who have shown such faith and determination. Captain Jimmy Andrew said to me recently "We will get it into service and we will make it go." I am sure that he is right and that his faith is justified. The names of Morien Morgan, Sir Archibald Russell, Jimmy Hamilton and George Edwards will one day be written on a Concorde roll of honour when all the problems are solved.
Perhaps it is not inappropriate if I finish with two quotations. The first is from a letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the then Prime Minister, on 26th January 1973, when he said:
We are aware of the extent and number of the anti-Concorde interests to which you refer, and we are determined not to allow them to deprive us of the full benefits of our investment in this important project.
This is a sentiment which has been continued by the present Government, for which all those who have a vision of the future are extremely grateful.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech which I shall long remember, said the other day:
Without vision, the people perish.
Many of us have a small glimpse of the vision which made this nation a great one. I believe that Concorde will continue to fulfil a vital rôle in keeping us ahead in the years ahead.

4.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by saying that he was glad that I was here rather than a Minister from the Department of Industry.


Although I understand his reasons for saying that, I am not sure that I agree with it at this late hour.
From his Bristol days, the hon. Gentleman has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Concorde. Anyone who at 4.15 in the morning can remember to put on his Concorde tie provides sufficient evidence of that enormous enthusiasm. I have slipped up by not putting on my British Airways tie, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this in no way diminishes my regard and esteem for British Airways.
It is right to say that the hon. Gentleman, who from time to time indulges in political outbursts, against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, is, I know, also an enthusiastic supporter of my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Concorde over the years, and that is continuing.
The hon. Gentleman based this debate on the public dividend capital position of British Airways. Somehow, I evolved the idea that he would find it rather difficult to relate a debate of this kind to that gloriously interesting subject. But, as he raised it in passing only, I should make two points about it, because they are relevant and have led to some misunderstanding.
When the former Minister for Aerospace in the last Conservative Government made a statement to the House in May 1972 explaining that the capital structure for the British Airways Board would be changed to bring it more closely into line with that existing in foreign airlines, he also chose at the same time to announce the decision by the then BOAC to order five Concordes. Understandably, this led to the belief in some quarters that public dividend capital and the Concorde were inextricably bound together. That is true in the sense to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. A project costing the sort of price that the Concorde is costing must play a part in the public dividend capital requirement of the board. But the need to change the debt-to-equity ratio of the board would remain irrespective of the Concorde.
The hon. Gentleman went on to widen the debate to various other matters, including his anecdotes about his visit to the United States with the present Secretary

of State for Industry. That is a visit which I should like to have made, not simply to have heard those two together but to have listened to some of the debates which went on with the opponents of the Concorde.
Then the hon. Gentleman talked about a number of problems affecting the Concorde before it can be put into service. He referred to the environmental impact statement which analysed the environmental impact of the proposed introduction of the Concorde and which was published on 3rd March, and to the fact that environmental legislation is required in the United States before the Federal Aviation Administration can approve the necessary amendment to British Airways' operational specifications which will enable the services to be introduced.
Following the submission of the draft statement, there now follows a formal process of consultation on it in the United States. That is expected to take about four months. When it has been completed the FAA will take a decision on the introduction of commercial Concorde services. It has an obligation to take full account of all representations made during the period of consultation. It would be wrong to suggest—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was making this suggestion—that that is a foregone conclusion. That is not so. It is right to say that the draft environmental impact statement is reasonably encouraging. We remain hopeful that the outcome will be favourable for British Airways.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the opponents of Concorde in somewhat inelegant terms. I am bound to say that I do not think that it is productive or helpful to question the motives of its opponents. It is much better to be able to deal with the arguments, and the hon. Gentleman mounted formidable arguments. Those who propose the case of Concorde will continue to mount formidable arguments. To indulge in the sort of slanging in which apparently one American politician may have indulged and in which the hon. Gentleman indulged this morning is bound to be counter-productive. For that reason I am glad that the debate is taking place at this hour of the morning. I hope that his remarks will not be too widely reported.
The fact is that people worry a great deal about noise. If the hon. Gentleman were in my position by some mischance —I think that event extremely unlikely—he would know that people feel passionately about noise because they are affected by it. Not unnaturally, the people who are most affected are those who live near airports and regard noise as a pestilence. I do not want to question their motives or the motives of those who represent them. If the hon. Gentleman were representing an area close to a large and busy airport—I know that he is very close to Hurn but that does not altogether fall into the category of Heathrow—I have no doubt that he would wish to represent his constituents and articulate their interests. They would demand it of him and they would be right to do so.

Mr. Adley: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard tomorrow he will see that I said quite clearly that those who are suffering and who will continue to suffer, and who have suffered, from the curse and pestilence of noise must be protected. The point I have always sought to make is that Concorde will not be noisier than the aircraft in service today. That is the point on which I hope the hon. Gentleman will concentrate.

Mr. Davis: I have a duty to ensure that a fair balance is maintained in the argument about noise. I shall come to the point about noise and Concorde in a moment. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he was very patronising about those who represent the interests of constituents who live close to airports. When he reads Hansard tomorrow I think he will wish that he had not adopted that attitude. His remarks will not be well received by a number of his hon. Friends.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is essentially right in the observations that he has made about noise and Concorde. That is not to say that we have reached an ideal position. We must aim for continuous improvement. We must be able to convince the port authority of New York and of New Jersey that Concorde comes within the acceptable rules which have been provided for noise at Kennedy Airport. I am confident that we shall he able to do that. I think that recent studies favour that conclusion. But we cannot rush into the belief that

we have won all the battles. Indeed, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman sought to represent that position.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the opponents of Concorde were aware of the damage that they might do by seeking to bar the aircraft from New York. People can wax enthusiastic about any cause that they represent and, in so doing, may not see the blemishes of their own arguments. Therefore, it follows that the proponents, the supporters, of Concorde still have a lot of heavy arguing to do.
I believe that we have a considerable well of support in the United States for Concorde. I am sure that there is a desire on the part of millions of people to see this superb aircraft, and aircraft that will develop from it, flying into the United States and making a quicker and more reasonable link with Europe than can exist with any other form of air transport. It is plain that when one gets into this political arena exaggerated and distorted views will be expressed.
The hon. Gentleman left United States politicians and went on the rampage against certain journalists who have taken a different view from his own about Concorde. It is abundantly clear that the manufacture of this aircraft has involved a great investment of capital and resources and human skills and ingenuity. We are now close to the point of takeoff—scheduled flights—to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Certain people have engaged in a campaign of calumny against the aircraft in the past. I do not question their motives. I am sure that from their standpoint they were taking a perfectly bona fide view. But, having said that, now that we are close to the point of take-off, I hope that that campaign of calumny will cease and that we shall see a great welling of support for this aircraft, because it is critical that we win the kind of arguments and battles to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is right that the other routes—the Middle East, Australia and trans-Siberia—to which the hon. Gentleman referred are important, but the North American route is of signal significance.
I am confident that Concorde will speak for itself. It will not be debates from this House at 4.15 until nearly five o'clock in the morning which will hail the great


attributes of this superlative aircraft. It will become self-evident, I hope even to the present opponents of the aircraft, that this is something worth investing in. I am confident that within the foreseeable future Concorde will not only be flying across the Atlantic but will be welcomed by those who have played such an important part in opposing its arrival there.
Despite my criticism of parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter in the early hours of the morning.

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (OIL)

4.55 a.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy to have the opportunity to raise in the House the problems created for underdeveloped countries by the fourfold rise in the price of oil in recent years. I am sorry to have had to drag my right hon. Friend from her matrimonial couch a such a ghastly hour, and I am grateful to her for having arrived here looking so fresh and so willing to stand up to my barrage of questions. I assure her that my oratorical flight will be a great deal swifter than that of my predecessor on the Conservative benches discussing Concorde, but at this late hour it is appropriate that we should look around the world a little and consider the plight of those who are even worse off than ourselves.
I should like to illustrate the problem, before raising various questions with my right hon. Friend, by reference to two countries which it has been my privilege to visit during the past year, both of which are underdeveloped, and each of which suffered immensely as a result of the increase in oil prices. I refer to India and Israel.
Last summer I was fortunate enough to spend 10 days in India as the guest of the Indian Government and to travel around that vast country and see something of the problems which existed before the oil crisis but which have been heightened and sharpened by the vastly increased difficulties which that crisis has created for the Indian authorities.
I saw poverty on a scale which is almost impossible for anyone to contemplate

who has not seen it. In Gujarat State, for example, I saw the hutment areas in Bombay, a place where people are existing on the very lowest levels of human subsistence. I saw also the vivid and energetic efforts being made by so many Indians to improve the lot of their fellows. It saddened me that the difficulties encountered by the Indian authorities had grown worse and had not eased over the past few years.
In the Punjab. I travelled through to the glorious Golden Temple of the Sikhs at Amritsar, and up through Chandigarh to the Bakhra Dam at Nangal where hydroelectric power is being created on a huge scale. It is a tremendous technological achievement of which the Indians are rightly proud, but it creates only a small proportion of the power that is needed.
What a land of contrasts this is, with the Bakhra Dam on high, while down below in the villages power is being created by burning cattle dung which should be used for fertiliser, since artificial fertiliser cannot be made available as it should be. It is a by-product of oil. Oil price increases to us mean extra costs for our cars and for warming our homes. In India, oil is also, and above all, the means of enriching their fields and enabling them to grow the food of which they are so short.
The fourfold increase in the price of oil has brought a mass transfer of producing power from oil-consuming countries like India to oil-producing countries in the Middle East and Latin America. The slackening of the growth of demand and production in industrial countries increases the danger of the world-wide recession which affects the developing along with the developed nations.
We know the effect on European countries, including our own. The devastation here is as nothing compared with that suffered on the Indian subcontinent and in other countries where the spectre of famine is never far away. The prevailing conditions cause a special fear to the disadvantaged countries. For them the tragedy of high oil prices is compounded by the high prices of fertilisers and by the fact that the industrialised countries can no longer come to their aid to the same extent as before.
This debate is possible because we are making a modest contribution to a fund to assist the underdeveloped countries. It is a tiny drop in a vast ocean of suffering, but I hope that the Minister will tell us something of how that money is to be spent, how the figure is reached and how it is divided. But at least we are doing something.
India's oil import bill increased by 175 per cent. in 1973–74 and is expected to increase by an equal amount in 1974–75. The increase has come at a time when India has to import food, the climate has been unkind and fertiliser prices have rocketed. Oil now accounts for 30 per cent. of total imports. India, like us, has to balance her budget as best she can. She has had to supplement the inadequate levels of international assistance by drawing on the International Monetary Fund and by running down reserves, which will become increasingly difficult during the coming year.
India's debt service liability is increasing while the availability of aid is not. Her ability to borrow further from international agencies diminishes as she borrows further. The country is not greatly different from the individual—to him who hath shall be given, to him who bath shall be lent, to those in greatest need shall be neither given nor lent because their powers of repayment become smaller as time goes on. As India borrows more, so her debt service liability increases. Each short-term reprieve leads to a long-term difficulty.
So higher oil prices impose a permanent burden which cannot be permanently eased by temporary expedients. The only solution is India's own ability to service her debt by increased domestic production and better trading opportunities.
How can India increase production? This depends on what we have come to call the recycling of petrodollars. The Indians want a different solution from the one for which we are generally pressing. We try to sell more particularly to the Arab countries and to encourage them to invest here, and this is right. On the other hand, we should use our efforts—I am sure my right hon. Friend is using her best endeavours—to see whether it is not possible for a trilateral exchange, so that the oil money can go to the under-

developed countries and increase their productive capacity and their power to buy from us, so that we do not simply sell to them but they have the capacity to buy from us.
There is no reason why a country such as India cannot participate in the enormous building programmes going on in the oil countries. India, as I have seen, has a fine capacity for the building of houses and homes, of offices and airports, of roads, dams and waterworks. The capital city of Chandigarh in the Punjab is a magnificent example of great town planning. The structures that the Indians have built in their country are as wondrous as the Taj Mahal—which, incidentally, is one of the very few trumpeted tourist attractions which are even more glorious in reality than they are when portrayed in photographs in brochures. It has to be seen and enjoyed to be believed and understood.
India is building factories, roads and workshops, and it has much to offer. What we have to do as best we can is to help it to prosper by lending it our technical assistance and our bargaining weight. Even if that happens, the results will still not be enough to meet the balance of payments needs of such a country. Therefore, every possible encouragement should be given to the oil producers to make funds available for the development of the poorer countries. Naturally, oil producers like good security and prefer to invest in developed countries. Perhaps it is possible for us to provide some sort of guarantee on behalf of the Indians that moneys which are laid out for them or to them will be repaid or honoured. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give some indication of what we are able to do in that respect.
One of the sad features of Indian policy, which is deplored by leaders and members of, I believe, most of the Indian political parties—I spoke to many of them during my time in India—is the way in which India has attempted to meet the oil crisis by increasing her political support for the Arab cause and by even refusing to have normal diplomatic relations with Israel. The example set by India shows that this kind of bowing to Arab pressure simply does not bring the results which the Government concerned hope for it. Instead of reacting to this kindness, instead of returning the favours


offered, the Arab countries have not reduced the price of oil for their Indian friends. They have not made life any easier for those who have to try to feed the Indian people. They have not given great credits to enable the Indian economy to survive.
I was privileged to attend a session in the Lok Sabha, the Lower House of India's Parliament, when they were discussing the oil problem and how they even had to put curbs on the use of kerosene for cooking the tiny amount of food necessary for the ordinary Indian family to survive. There was even talk of curbs on transport to weddings—minor and pathetic decreases in the use of petrol products. Yet the real problem is that the oil-producing countries are doing nothing of any substance to assist their underdeveloped brethren with whom they claim to have common cause. We have to judge that common cause by the way in which they treat others, in underdeveloped countries. I suppose that the answer is essentially that the Arab Governments treat the Indian people in very much the same way as they treat their own, and that is with a deep lack of care and concern.
That leads me to the second underdeveloped country which I visited during the past year, Israel. It has much in common with India in so many ways, including the fact that at the time I was in India both countries were led by lady Prime Ministers. The spread of women's liberation has gone from India via Israel to the Conservative Party here.
Israel and India share many problems and the people of the two countries have an affection for each other. The Israelis find it difficult to understand the Indian attitude towards them. Israel's oil problem's have been made infinitely worse during the recent past because, although Israel has the Abu Rodeis oil field, it is not using that oil for its own consumption and it has been paying an increased price for its oil like everyone else.
The increase in the price of oil contributed $500 million to the increased gap in the country's balance of payments in recent years. The deficit in the balance of payments increased by $1,000 million in 1974 to $3,600 million, which is nearly half of Israel's gross domestic product. That amounted to about $8,000 million in

1974. The main reasons for the increase were the rise in the price of oil, the increased cost of raw materials and the high import bill for defence, upon which Israel has to spend one third of its gross national product. External loans increased to $6,300 million at the end of 1974, which is the highest per capita external debt in the world.
As in the case of India, this creates an enormous burden not only for the moment but for the future because the loan must be repaid. Britain does not like borrowing, but we manage it, and we know that oil will soon be flowing from the North Sea. We know that in a few years we shall be free of the miseries that surround us and that we shall be in an infinitely stronger position to face our own commitments and worries. Meanwhile we have problems which we rightly regard as very grave, but if we put them into the context of the sort of problems that face the Governments of India and Israel we achieve a sense of balance. It shows that the entire system of the world in which we have become used to living so comfortably is changing rapidly and in the most worrying way.
In India I was received with the most cordial hospitality, and I am happy to pay tribute to it. Everywhere I went people talked of their worries about the future and how their economy could survive. They have a sense of friendliness towards Britain which is deeply satisfying. It is easy for the visitor to criticise aspects of Indian life, particularly as the Indians themselves do so freely. That, after all, is one of the glories of India. In spite of its difficulties it remains a free and democratic country where it is possible to express a view, however unpopular. It is also a country where the oil crisis hovers permanently over the miseries of millions.
Equally, it is a land where there is hope. When my right hon. Friend replies I hope she will add to the good will existing between our countries by saying that this gesture of ours is a real one in that we are giving a small sum in recognition of the fact that we would wish to do much more.
I hope also that my right hon. Friend will give an indication of the continuation of the Government's abhorrence of


the Arab boycott and of our recognition that—as shown by the fate of India—bowing to blackmail leads only to more power for the arm and will of the blackmailer. As this applies in the national sphere so it applies to individual firms and companies that deal with the oil-producing countries of the Middle East.
If we make it plain that we wish to trade with the Arab countries, that we expect them to honour their obligations and that we hope that they, like us, will do what is possible to assist those who are less well off, including their own people, our prospects of living in a world of peace and prosperity will be greatly increased and we shall come through the present crisis with perhaps more understanding of each other and more good will.

5.17 a.m.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for focusing our attention during this debate on the developing countries. They are so often overlooked. It was good to hear my hon. and learned Friend concentrating on the problems in particular of India. I preceded him to Chandigarh about three years ago. I entirely share his view about the beauty and brilliance of that place.
I turn to the problem on which my hon. and learned Friend has concentrated our attention, that of the developing countries, the serious rises in the price of oil and its effect particularly on the poorest countries of the developing world. He knows that this was highlighted in the reports of the Select Committee on Overseas Development published in July 1974 and, most recently, in January 1975.
The situation in 1974 was that the non-oil-producing developing countries as a group faced an estimated income loss of over $10 billion as a result of higher prices. In balance of payment terms this loss was initially cushioned, particularly for the better-off developing countries, by a continuation of high prices for the commodities they exported. That cushion has now been eroded and reserves are falling.
It may put the figure of $10 billion in perspective if I mention that net flows of

official development assistance from countries which are members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee are tentatively estimated at $11 billion for 1974. The situation was much more serious for countries like India which already had low per capita incomes, large populations and low per capita levels of professional assistance. Britain's aid programme was already focused on their needs. India has always been the major recipient of our aid, and, therefore, we very much welcome the decision of the United Nations almost a year ago to set up the special programme, known as the Emergency Measures, which called on donors to provide emergency assistance to all those countries most seriously affected by the rise in the price of oil and other commodities. Thirty-three of those countries recognised as being very seriously affected included India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
My hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the Special Fund to which this Vote applies. He will be aware that it is only a tiny fraction of our assistance to the emergency measures. The $5 million to the Special Fund is just a drop compared with what we have contributed in other ways to the special measures. For example, we have contributed $174 million to the emergency measures as a whole, and this included $106 million for India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. In addition, we have contributed our share to the EEC contribution of $250 million. The Community has so far allocated only $150 million of this, and India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have benefited to the extent of $77 million.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the problems of countries such as India. I assure him that they are very much in our minds.
I wish to say a few words about the oil facility and the measures which are being attempted to introduce the concept of OPEC money being recycled to benefit various countries. Various international measures, both concessional and non-concessional, have been discussed, principally within the IMF and the World Bank, for directly or indirectly recycling surplus funds with particular reference to the needs of the less developed countries. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, although much still remains to be done, a significant move is beginning to


be made in recycling from the oil-producing countries which can only benefit all of us.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day ; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put

forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock